alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James R. Everall, Respondent, *against*Neils P. Lassen, Appellant.

[Special Teem].

(Decided July 24th, 1884.)

Where, upon affirming on appeal a final order in summary proceedings to recover the possession of real property, costs are awarded to the respondent, the costs taxable are such, and such only, as would be taxable if the special proceedings had been an action and the final order a judgment.

Motion for re-taxation of costs.

Upon appeal from a final order in a summary proceeding to recover possession of real property in the City of New York, the order was affirmed, with costs to the respondent. His costs having been taxed, the appellant moved for a re-taxation.

*George H.*Hart, for appellant.

*R. P.*Livermore, for respondent.

Van Hoesen, J.

The legislature intended to make the practice uniform by abolishing the difference between an appeal from a judgment and the method of reviewing a final order in summary proceedings. Under section 2260 of the Code of Civil Procedure an appeal from a final order in summary proceedings differs in no respect from an appeal from a judgment (see *Shaw*v. McCarty, 63 How. Pr. 288). Where a final order is affirmed, costs are in the discretion of the court. Section 3240 provides that “ costs in a special proceeding instituted in a court of record, or upon appeal in a special, proceeding taken to a court of record, where the costs thereof are not specially regulated in this act, may be awarded to any party, in the discretion of the court, at *11the rates allowed for similar services in an action brought in the same court or an appeal from a judgment taken to the same court.”

As the General Term allowed costs to the respondent, the clerk should tax such costs—and such only—as would be taxable if the special proceeding had been an action and the final order a judgment.

Decree accordingly.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24


                        [RYDER SCOTT COMPANY LETTERHEAD]



                         CONSENT OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY


     We consent to the use on form 10-K of Sterling Gas Drilling Fund 1982 of
our reserve report and all schedules, exhibits, and attachments thereto
incorporated by reference of Form 10-K and to any reference made to us on Form
10-K as a result of such incorporation.

                                         Very Truly Yours,

                                         /s/ RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                             PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

                                         RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                         PETROLEUM ENGINEERS



Denver, Colorado
March 11, 1997
§ 110.52 Documentation a survivor must submit for the Secretary to make a determination of eligibility for death benefits. ( a ) A requester who is a survivor under § 110.11 must submit the following documentation in order for a determination of eligibility for a death benefit to be made: ( 1 ) All of the documentation required for individuals in § 110.51. There is no need to duplicate documentation already submitted to satisfy the requirements of other subparts in this part. For example, if the deceased injured countermeasure recipient had previously filed, the documentation submitted does not have to be re-submitted; and
( 2 ) A death certificate for the deceased countermeasure recipient. If a death certificate is unavailable, the requester must submit a letter providing the reasons for its unavailability. The Secretary has the discretion to accept other documentation as evidence that the injured countermeasure recipient is deceased; and
( 3 ) Medical records sufficient to establish that the deceased injured countermeasure recipient died as the result of the covered injury or its health complications. Such medical records may be the same as those required under § 110.50. If an autopsy was performed, the requester must submit a complete copy of the final autopsy report; and
( 4 ) Documentation showing that the requester is an eligible survivor, pursuant to § 110.11 (*e.g.,* birth certificate or marriage certificate); and
( 5 ) Verification, on the place provided on the Request Form, either that there are no other eligible survivors (*e.g.,* for surviving eligible children, that there is no surviving spouse, no other surviving eligible children, and no other surviving dependents younger than the age of 18 who may be eligible for the death benefit under the alternative calculation) or that other eligible survivors exist (along with the information known about such survivors). Section 110.11 describes eligible survivors and the priorities of survivorship; and
( 6 ) Even if a Request Form had previously been filed by the injured countermeasure recipient, the survivor(s) must submit a new Request Form.
( b ) [Reserved]
LIABILITY OF BROKER SELLING BY SAMPLE.

Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.

#### The Lippencott Company v. The R. A. Holden Company.

Decided, January 24, 1916.

*Sales*— Dried *Apples Sold by Sample*— Afterward *Condemned as Unfit for Food*— Brolcer *Handling Said Goods not Liable to Purchaser.*

A broker who sells dried apples by sample, with opportunity to the purchaser to inspect them upon arrival, is not liable to the purchaser on account thereof, where it appears that the apples were accepted and paid for in due course, and a little later were condemned by a Federal inspector as unfit for food.

*Bentley <£*Mente, for plaintiff in error.

*Suire &*Bielly, contra.

Jones (Oliver B.), J.

The question in this case is whether a broker, who sold dried apples by sample, is required to repay the purchase price to the purchaser, when the dried apples transported in interstate commerce were seized by the Federal government as being in violation of the Federal food and drug act, and were condemned and destroyed by virtue of proceedings under a libel filed in the United States District Court.

The record shows that the sale was made by sample; opportunity was given the purchaser to fully inspect the shipment when it arrived July 25, 1913. The goods were accepted and sent by the purchaser to cold storage, and paid for to the broker *544July 28. Afterwards they were seized by the Federal inspector who first inspected them five days after their acceptance.

The proof fails to show that the goods were not up to sample, or that they were adulterated and unfit for food at the time of acceptance by the purchaser. It does not appear that the broker ever saw the goods, or that he was in any way responsible for the condition in which they were received, or that he made any representations whatever to the purchaser further than to exhibit to him the sample by which the sale was made and to notify him of the receipt of the goods in the railroad car.

No defense to the libel was made by the purchaser or by anyone in the proceedings in the Federal court. After the monition and attachment issued, notice by publication was made and mailed to the purchaser, the warehouseman, the broker, and the shipper. Final judgment was entered November 5, 1913, sustaining the allegations of the libel, and adjudging the dried apples under seizure adulterated, in violation of said food and drugs act, condemning them and ordering their destruction. A copy of these proceedings and judgment was relied upon by defendant as being conclusive proof of the unsalable condition of the goods when they were shipped and when they were accepted by the purchaser. This was an action *in re*to, and can only speak as to the condition of the goods at the time of the seizure. There •is nothing in the record except possible inference to show their condition previous to that time, either at the time of sale or delivery.

A careful consideration of the record fails to disclose any error to the prejudice of the plaintiff in error and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

Jones (E. H.) P. J., and Gorman, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certifications





The undersigned officers certify that this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Apollo Solar Energy, Inc.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Apollo Solar Energy, Inc. and will be retained by Apollo Solar Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








August 14, 2012
/s/ Jingong PanJingong Pan (Chief Executive Officer)August 14, 2012
/s/ Hui HuaHui Hua (Chief Financial Officer)
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Robert W. McMartin, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-QSB of Circuit Research Labs, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
 

 
   likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: November 21, 2005./s/ Robert W. McMartin
#### § 412.340 Fully prospective payment methodology.

A hospital paid under the fully prospective payment methodology receives a payment per discharge based on a proportion of the hospital-specific rate and the Federal rate as follows:

| Cost reporting periods beginning on or after: | Federal rate percentage | Hospital-specific rate percentage |
| --- | --- | --- |
| October 1, 1991 | 10 | 90 |
| October 1, 1992 | 20 | 80 |
| October 1, 1993 | 30 | 70 |
| October 1, 1994 | 40 | 60 |
| October 1, 1995 | 50 | 50 |
| October 1, 1996 | 60 | 40 |
| October 1, 1997 | 70 | 30 |
| October 1, 1998 | 80 | 20 |
| October 1, 1999 | 90 | 10 |
| October 1, 2000 | 100 | 0 |
#### § 137.4 May Title V be construed to limit or reduce in any way the funding for any program, project, or activity serving an Indian Tribe under this or other applicable Federal law?

No, if an Indian Tribe alleges that a compact or funding agreement violates section 515(a) of the Act [25 U.S.C. 458aaa-14(a)], the Indian Tribe may apply the provisions of section 110 of the Act [25 U.S.C. 450m-1].
HomeLatvia

# Latvia

108 items

        -    		Enhanced Partnership in Northern Europe (E-PINE)	   
        -    Report  		Latvia	  July 19, 2018 
        -    Report  		Latvia	  June 28, 2018 
        -    Report  		Latvia	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Latvia	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Latvia	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Latvia	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Latvia	  June 27, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Latvia (17-410) – Defense Procurement Agreement	  April 10, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Latvia (17-405) – Agreement on Defense Cooperation	  April 5, 2017 

previous page1…7891011next page

Back to Top
HomeRussia

# Russia

1743 items

        -    Press Statement  		Taking Actions to Reduce Russia’s Revenue from Metals Trade	  Matthew MillerApril 12, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 11, 2024	  Matthew MillerApril 11, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Marking Two Years of Vladimir Kara-Murza’s Unjust Detention	  Matthew MillerApril 11, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 8, 2024	  Matthew MillerApril 8, 2024 
        -    Readout  		Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Call with Spanish State Secretary for Foreign and Global Affairs Martínez Belío	  April 5, 2024 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken With European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, and High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell Before Their Meeting	  Antony J. BlinkenApril 5, 2024European Commission HeadquartersBrussels, Belgium 
        -    Report  		Condition (10)(C) Annual Report on Compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)	  April 4, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 3, 2024	  Matthew MillerApril 3, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Readout  		Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Call with European External Action Service Secretary General Sannino	  April 3, 2024 
        -    Interview  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Darius Rochebin of LCI/TF1	  Antony J. BlinkenApril 2, 2024Chief of Mission Residence Paris, France 

123…175next page

Back to Top
# SanJoaquinValley AIR POLLUTIONCONTROL DISTRICT

Christopher Meyer Project Manager California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 9581 

### 4 Re: 	 Noticeof Preliminary Determination of 

### Compliance (PDOC) Project Number: C-1080386 

## - Avenal Power Center LLC (08-AFC-01) Dear Mr. Meyer: Enclosed for your review and comment is the District's preliminary determination of compliance (PDOC) for the installation of a nominal 600 MW combined cycle power plant, located at NE% Section 19, T21S, R18E 

### - Mount Diablo Base Meridian on Assessor's Parcel Number 36-170-032 inAvenal, CA. The notice of preliminary decision for this project will be published approximately three days from the date of this letter. Please submit your written comments on this project within the 30-day public comment period which begins on the date of publication of the public notice. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions regardingthis matter, please contact Mr. Derek Fukuda of Permit Services at (559) 230-591 7. Sincerely,

Directorof Permit Services

Enclosures

Seyed Sadredin Executive DirectorlAir Pollution Control Officer
Northern Region Central Region (MainOffice) Soutl~ern Region 4800 EnterpriseWay 1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue 2700 M Street, Suite 275 Modesto, CA 95356-8718 Fresno, CA 93726-0244 Eakersf~eld, CA 93301-2373 Tel: (2091 557-6400 FAX: (209)557-6475 Tel: (5591230-6000 FAX (559)230-6061 Tei. I661 1326-6900 FAX. (661)326-6985 www.valley~~~r.org
Printed on recycled paper 0Fresno Bee

NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY DECISION FOR THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District solicits public comment on the proposed issuance of determination of compliance (DOC) to Avenal Power Center LLCfor the installation of a nominal 600 

### MW combined cycle power plant, located at NEX Section 

### 19, T21S, R18E 

### - Mount Diablo Base Meridianon Assessor's Parcel Number 36-1 70-032 inAvenal, CA. The analysis of the regulatory basis for these proposed actions, Project #C-1080386, is available for public inspection at the District office at the address below. Written comments on this project must be submitted within 30 days of the publication date of this notice to DAVID WARNER, DIRECTOR OF PERMIT SERVICES, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT, 1990 EAST GETTYSBURG AVENUE, FRESNO,CA 93726.
#### § 405.1116 Effect of dismissal of request for Council review or request for hearing.

The dismissal of a request for Council review or denial of a request for review of a dismissal issued by an ALJ or attorney adjudicator is binding and not subject to further review unless reopened and vacated by the Council. The Council's dismissal of a request for hearing is also binding and not subject to judicial review.

[70 FR 11472, Mar. 8, 2005, as amended at 82 FR 5123, Jan. 17, 2017]
Exhibit
23  Consent of Independent
Auditors  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following
Registration Statements of our report dated January 20, 2004 (except for Note
28, as to which the date is March 2, 2004) with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Hudson United Bancorp and Subsidiaries, included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003:    Form S-8 No. 333-86794, pertaining to the 2002 Stock Option Plan Form S-8 No. 333-75571, pertaining to the 1999 Stock Option Plan Form S-8 No. 333-61491, pertaining to the Option Plan of IBS Financial
Corp. Form S-8 No. 333-61493, pertaining to the Option Plans of Dimefinancial
Corp. Form S-8 No. 333-52193, pertaining to the Option Plans for Former
Employees of Poughkeepsie Financial Corp. Form S-8 No. 033-59801, pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP   New York, New York March 12, 2004
Document

Exhibit 10.1



THE DIXIE GROUP, INC.
Consolidated Condensed Statements of Operations
(unaudited; in thousands, except earnings per share)
																		
	 	Three Months Ended          Twelve Months Ended
	 	December 26,
2020	December 28,
2019		December 26,
2020	December 28,
2019
						
	NET SALES	$	88,618 		$	90,135 			$	315,939 		$	374,582 	
	Cost of sales	65,640 		67,415 			239,483 		288,377 	
	GROSS PROFIT	22,978 		22,720 			76,456 		86,205 	
	Selling and administrative expenses	19,477 		20,015 			75,731 		83,825 	
	Other operating (income) expense, net	55 		(24,136)			(108)		(23,988)	
	Facility consolidation and severance expenses, net	1,967 		160 			3,752 		5,019 	
	Impairment of assets	— 		— 			— 		— 	
	OPERATING INCOME (LOSS)	1,479 		26,681 			(2,919)		21,349 	
	Interest expense	1,599 		1,358 			5,803 		6,444 	
	Other (income) expense, net	593 		(13)			678 		(57)	
						
						
	Income (loss) from continuing operations before taxes	(713)		25,336 			(9,400)		14,962 	
	Income tax provision (benefit)	(312)		(683)			(312)		(657)	
	Income (loss) from continuing operations	(401)		26,019 			(9,088)		15,619 	
	Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax	83 		(305)			(120)		(348)	
	NET INCOME (LOSS)	$	(318)		$	25,714 			$	(9,208)		$	15,271 	
						
	BASIC EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE:					
	Continuing operations	$	(0.03)		$	1.61 			$	(0.59)		$	0.96 	
	Discontinued operations	0.01 		(0.02)			(0.01)		(0.02)	
	Net income (loss)	$	(0.02)		$	1.59 			$	(0.60)		$	0.94 	
						
	DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE:					
	Continuing operations	$	(0.03)		$	1.60 			$	(0.59)		$	0.95 	
	Discontinued operations	0.01 		(0.02)			(0.01)		(0.02)	
	Net income (loss)	$	(0.02)		$	1.58 			$	(0.60)		$	0.93 	
						
	Weighted-average shares outstanding:					
	Basic	15,242 		15,693 			15,316 		15,822 	
	Diluted	15,242 		15,801 			15,316 		15,926 	
						

 




-MORE-
#### Eugene B. MASON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-1103.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 25, 1975.

Appeal dismissed.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 16-1090L

(Filed February 1, 2017)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*

*

TEMOR S. SHARIFI, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ORDER

Plaintiff alleges that property he owns in Deh-e-Kowchay, Arghandab 

District, Kandahar, Afghanistan, was physically taken by the United States 

Department of Defense. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 4, 15. More specifically, Mr. Sharifi alleges 

that he owns a portion of a 38 jerib parcel that he inherited from his father and that 

“the Army used his land and that of his neighbors to construct Combat Outpost 

Millet.” Compl. ¶¶ 4, 13.

Defendant has moved for a more definite statement, under Rule 12(e) of the 

Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC), arguing that 

“[p]laintiff’s complaint is vague and ambiguous because it does not specifically 

identify the property interest allegedly taken by the United States.” Def’s Mot. at 2. 

The government notes that Combat Outpost Millet is “less than six jeribs in size . . . 

and would not have encompassed the entire 38-jerib parcel” owned by plaintiff’s 

father. Id.

Although plaintiff elaborates that “houses and trees on his property had been 

demolished by the Army,” Compl. ¶ 8, and that a tenant farmer of the land has been

displaced, id. ¶ 9, these descriptions are not enough for defendant to identify the 

specific property allegedly taken. Nor is its precise location determinable by the 

allegation that Combat Outpost Millet occupied it, as plaintiff alleges that land of 
- 2 -

his neighbors was also taken in constructing the facility. See Compl. ¶ 13. While 

the Court recognizes that different countries will have their own customs and 

practices regarding the formalities employed in recognizing property ownership, 

those of Afghanistan should not prevent plaintiff from providing more specific 

information concerning the location of his land, to satisfy RCFC 8(i). Indeed, Mr. 

Sharifi alleges that he has provided “proof of ownership of the land” in question to a 

local U.S. Army officer, with “documentation” which “had been verified by the 

District Governor for Arghandab District.” Compl. ¶ 11. This same sort of 

information should be included in the complaint, to properly inform the government 

of the cause of action brought by plaintiff. 

For the above reasons, defendant’s motion for a more definite statement is 

hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on or by 

Wednesday, February 15, 2017, specifically identifying the land that he owns 

that was allegedly taken --- either by attaching as an exhibit the documentation 

referred to in paragraph 11 of the initial complaint, or in some other way describing 

the specific location of the land owned by him (and not his neighbors). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Victor J. Wolski

VICTOR J. WOLSKI

Judge