alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 35.64 Donors.

Authorized contributions may be accepted from patients, employees and other individuals, and agencies and organizations.
#### Dotts *v.*Fetzer.

The Common Pleas have no power to change the names of the parties to a feigned issue sent from the Register’s Court. — But if they do, and no injury ensues, the judgment will not he reversed.

The declarations of one of several devisees or legatees are not evidence on a feigned issue, *devisavit vel non.*

In error from the Common Pleas of Northumberland.

*Aug.*—. This was a feigned issue directed by the Register’s *89Court to try the validity of the last will of Fetzer, wherein J. B. and A. J. Fetzer were plaintiffs, and Dotts defendant. On the petition of J. B. Fetzer the court withdrew his name: and several of the legatees having declared by their petition, their desire that the will should not ,be supported, their names were added as defendants.

On the trial the defendants offered to prove the declarations of A. J. Fetzer, the sole plaintiff on the record, that the testator was incompetent to make his will, which were rejected by the court.

These were the only material questions.

Miller, for plaintiff in error.

Jordan, contra,.

Per Curiam.

It is the business of the court which awards a feigned issue, to name the parties to it, and prescribe the form of it; and as this was done by the Register's Court, the Common Pleas had no power to' disturb it. But we never reverse for an error which has done no harm; and we are unable to perceive that any has been done by adding the names in this instance. The acts or declarations of legatees are not to be received in prejudice of other legatees; and the additional parties were not deprived by being joined of any advantage which they had before. Nor were they subjected to any burthen or disability. The fixing on parties to give' form to the issue, is a matter of arbitrary arrangement; and those who have not an interest in the question to be tried, pay no costs. The real parties — those who have taken an active part in the contest — are sought out and compelled to pay by a writ of attachment. All the exceptions resolve themselves into the point thus disposed of; and the plaintiffs in error consequently have no cause to complain.

Judgment affirmed.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3372

To provide for the recoupment to the Highway Trust Fund of that portion

of federal motor fuel taxes being deposited into the General Fund.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 1, 1996

Mr. RAHALL (for himself, Mr. OBERSTAR, and Mr. GIBBONS) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide for the recoupment to the Highway Trust Fund

of that portion of federal motor fuel taxes being deposited into the General Fund.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gasoline Tax Restitu5 tion Act of 1996’’.

6 SEC. 2. RECOUPMENT OF MOTOR FUEL TAXES TO HIGHWAY

7 TRUST FUND.

8 (a) REFERENCES.—References in this Act shall be

9 considered to be made to a section of the Internal Revenue

10 Code of 1986.
2

HR 3372 IH

1 (b) RECOUPMENT.—Notwithstanding any provision

2 of law to the contrary, there are hereby appropriated to

3 the Highway Trust Fund (established pursuant to section

4 9503) amounts equivalent to the taxes received in the

5 Treasury under section 4081 (relating to tax on gasoline

6 and diesel fuel) and such other applicable sections, that,

7 on the date immediately prior to the date of enactment

8 of this Act, are not being so appropriated or credited. The

9 amount of such taxes shall not exceed 4.3 cents per gallon.

Æ
#### THE UNITED STATES v. A. H. HEYWARD AND FANNIE H. CHAMPION, ADMINISTRATORS OF ANDREW H. HEYWARD, DECEASED.

[46 C. Cls., 484 ; 52 C. Cls., 87;

250 U. S., —.]

In the culture of rice the land must be overflowed, but the water must also be withdrawn. The land must therefore be above low-water mark so that with the aid of dikes or levees the water can be admitted, retained, and excluded. In the im*201provement of navigation of tlie Savannah River the Government so raised the river by dams and obstructions that the water can not be withdrawn from adjacent rice plantations, thereby permanently flooding the same, and the lands become unfit for the cultivation of rice, and therefore valueless.

The court below decided:

To destroy the agricultural value of land by the erection of publie works in the bed of a river is to take private property for public use, and it is a taking within the meaning of the Constitution, although the river is navigable and the dams and obstructions placed in its bed are for the purpose of improving navigation.

A court without positive proof can not find the fact on an assumption of engineering skill that by the digging of canals land may be reclaimed for rice culture, or any other profitable purpose, and there is no authority of law requiring the owner of submerged lands to embark in uncertain undertakings for the reclamation thereof.

*United States*v. *Lynah,*188 U. S., 445, governs.

Per curiam:

Judgment affirmed by an equally divided court, May 19, 1919.
HomePoland

# Poland

183 items

        -    Media Note  		The United States Joins Multinational Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050 to Support Global Climate and Energy Security Goals	  December 2, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		United States Launches Project Phoenix to Accelerate the Adoption of Advanced Clean Energy Technologies in Europe	  November 9, 2023 
        -    Overseas Schools Fact Sheet  		Warsaw, Poland: The American School of Warsaw: 2023-2024 Fact Sheet	  November 6, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Meeting with Ukraine on Chemical and Biological Safety and Security	  November 3, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Winners of the 2023 Secretary of State’s Award for Corporate Excellence	  October 19, 2023 
        -    Overseas Schools Fact Sheet  		Krakow, Poland: International School of Krakow: 2023-2024 Fact Sheet	  October 4, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Under Secretary Zeya’s Opening Remarks at the Warsaw Human Dimension Conference	  Uzra ZeyaOctober 2, 2023Warsaw, Poland 
        -    Media Note  		Under Secretary Zeya’s Travel to Rome, the Vatican, Palermo, and Warsaw	  September 25, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		New U.S.-Poland Foreign Military Financing Direct Loan Agreement Showcases Strong Security Partnership	  September 25, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – September 14, 2023	  Matthew MillerSeptember 14, 2023 

previous page12345…19next page

Back to Top
II

Calendar No. 618

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3186

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 11, 1996

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

SEPTEMBER 18, 1996

Reported by Mr. CHAFEE, without amendment

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 1655 Woodson

Road in Overland, Missouri, as the ‘‘Sammy L. Davis

Federal Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building located at 1655 Woodson Road

5 in Overland, Missouri, shall be known and designated as

6 the ‘‘Sammy L. Davis Federal Building’’.
2

HR 3186 RS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

5 a reference to the ‘‘Sammy L. Davis Federal Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

By JEFF TRANDAHL,

Assistant to the Clerk.

Calendar No. 618

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 3186

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 1655

‘‘Sammy L. Davis Federal Building’’.Woodson Road in Overland, Missouri, as the

SEPTEMBER 18, 1996

Reported without amendment
#### Sara Jane W. BYRNES, Appellant, v. John J. BYRNES, Appellee.

No. 80-2420.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 20, 1981.

Lawrence & Daniels and Adam Lawrence, Miami, for appellant.

*1127Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Mallory H. Horton, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, NESBITT and JOR-GENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Wife appeals from a final judgment of dissolution alleging multiple error on the part of the trial court.

We find no abuse of discretion on any issue except for the court’s failure to reserve jurisdiction to award further rehabilitative alimony. In that respect, the judgment below is reversed with directions to reserve jurisdiction to make such further order as may be justified at the conclusion of the rehabilitative period. *Mumm v. Mumm,*353 So.2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); *Hyatt v. Hyatt,*315 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part. Remanded with directions.
§ 423.124 Special rules for out-of-network access to covered Part D drugs at out-of-network pharmacies. ( a ) *Out-of-network access to covered part D drugs* — ( 1 ) *Out-of-network pharmacy access.* A Part D sponsor must ensure that Part D enrollees have adequate access to covered Part D drugs dispensed at out-of-network pharmacies when the enrollees— ( i ) Cannot reasonably be expected to obtain such drugs at a network pharmacy; and
( ii ) Do not access covered Part D drugs at an out-of-network pharmacy on a routine basis.
( 2 ) *Physician's office access.* A Part D sponsor must ensure that Part D enrollees have adequate access to vaccines and other covered Part D drugs appropriately dispensed and administered by a physician in a physician's office.
( b ) *Financial responsibility for out-of-network access to covered Part D drugs.* A Part D sponsor that provides its Part D enrollees with coverage other than defined standard coverage may require its Part D enrollees accessing covered Part D drugs as provided in paragraph (a) of this section to assume financial responsibility for any differential between the out-of-network pharmacy's (or provider's) usual and customary price and the Part D sponsor's plan allowance, consistent with the requirements of §§ 423.104(d)(2)(i)(B) and 423.104(e).
( c ) *Limits on out-of-network access to covered Part D.* A Part D sponsor must establish reasonable rules to appropriately limit out-of-network access to covered Part D drugs.
HomePapua New Guinea

# Papua New Guinea

79 items

        -    TIAS  		Papua New Guinea (23-816.1) – Agreement Concerning Counter Illicit Transnational Maritime Activity Operations	  August 16, 2023 
        -    TIAS  		Papua New Guinea (23-816) – Defense Cooperation Agreement	  August 16, 2023 
        -    Special Briefing  		Digital Press Briefing with Michael Schiffer, USAID Assistant Administrator for Asia, and Anka Lee, USAID Deputy Assistant Administrator and Senior Advisor	  August 10, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Investment Climate Statements: 	  July 26, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: Papua New Guinea 	  June 27, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Trafficking in Persons Report: Papua New Guinea	  June 15, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – May 22, 2023	  Matthew MillerMay 22, 2023 
        -    Fact Sheet  		U.S.-Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Dialogue in Papua New Guinea	  May 22, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Papua New Guinean Prime Minister James Marape at a Joint Press Availability	  Antony J. BlinkenMay 22, 2023APEC HausPort Moresby, Papua New Guinea 
        -    Media Note  		The United States and Papua New Guinea Sign New Defense Cooperation Agreement and an Agreement Concerning Counter Illicit Transnational Maritime Activity Operations	  May 22, 2023 

previous page1234…8next page

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                        (11,201)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  127,387
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    180,946
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               297,132
<PP&E>                                          63,386
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,221
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 333,297
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          198,523
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,895
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   340,332
<SALES>                                        745,671
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               745,671
<CGS>                                          363,061
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  363,061
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               457,506
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,586
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (95,482)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (95,482)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.041)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.041)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 423.516 Prohibition of midyear implementation of significant new regulatory requirements.

CMS may not implement, other than at the beginning of a calendar year, regulations under this section that impose new, significant regulatory requirements on a PDP sponsor or a prescription drug plan.
#### Commonwealth v. Mosher

*Quinn, Leemhuis, Plate & Dwyer,*for Gladys M. Mosher.

*Gerald A. McNelis,*for petitioner.

*321August 10, 1954.

Evans, P. J.,

This matter is before the court on petition for reduction of a support order and a subsequent motion to amend the petition to aver sterility as a defense against any order of support.

It appears that at the time the original order of support was placed upon defendant, in the amount of $20 per week for the support of two minor children, he pleaded guilty to the charge. Thereafter, on the advice of other counsel subsequently obtained, he raised the question of sterility prior to and during the marriage as complete proof of illegitimacy of the two children. It is averred that this defense was suggested to former counsel who advised defendant that it was of no avail to him in an action of this kind. In Cairgle v. American R. & S. S. Corp., 366 Pa. 249, the court held:

> “In order to successfully rebut the presumption of legitimacy, the evidence of non-access or lack of sexual intercourse or impotency must be clear, direct convincing and unanswerable.”

Under this authority it would therefore appear that impotency or sterility, as well as nonaccess, if sufficiently proved, might constitute complete defense to an action for support of minor children born to defendant and his wife during the period of wedlock even though the parties were living together. However, it is not necessary for us to so conclude in this case. When defendant appeared before the court and pleaded guilty to the charge of nonsupport and had an order placed against him the matter became res judicata: Com. ex rel. Highland v. Highland, 159 Pa. Superior Ct. 633; Com. ex rel. Soprani v. Soprani, 160 Pa. Superior Ct. 542; Com. v. Sam Deogard, May sessions, 1948, no. 143 (Erie County).

Defendant’s counsel earnestly contends that erroneous advice given to defendant by prior counsel as to his legal rights protects defendant from the law re*322garding res judicata which ordinarily would be binding upon him. However, a mistake of law furnishes no ground for setting aside a judgment. Were this not so any adjudication could be attacked after the time for appeal had expired. Erroneous legal advice, honestly believed, comes within this category: Waldecker v. Wolff, 71 S. Dak. 478, 26 N. W. 2d 78.

The amendment to the petition for reduction of the support order must be therefore refused, but a hearing fixed on the petition for reduction as originally filed should be allowed in order to ascertain whether or not the present order should be reduced.

*Order*

And now, to wit, August 10, 1954, the rule to show cause granted June 14, 1954, on the petition for the reduction of the support order entered in this case March 26, 1954, is granted, returnable at the August session of nonsupport court. The rule to show cause granted June 22, 1954, on the petition to amend the original petition to include the question of legitimacy or illegitimacy of the children is discharged.
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION I, Anthony A. Lombardo, certify that: 1.
I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of E-Z-EM, Inc.;  2.
Based
on my  knowledge,  this 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:  (a)
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;  (b)
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  (c)
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  5.
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):  (a)
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  (b)
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: April 12, 2005
                
    /s/ Anthony A. Lombardo
      
      
      Anthony A. Lombardo, President, 
      Chief Executive Officer and Director  -98-
#### Ex parte Charlie McGEE, alias Joe McGee. (Re Charlie McGee, alias v. State of Alabama).

79-460.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 30, 1980.

SHORES, Justice.

WRIT DENIED — NO OPINION.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
# C_2006010EN.01002002.xml

| 14.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/20

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2005 — First Data Corp. and Others v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-28/02) (1)

1

(Competition - Article 81 EC - Visa payment card scheme - The ‘no-acquiring-without-issuing’ rule - Negative clearance - Rule abolished during the proceedings - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2006/C 10/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: First Data Corp. (Wilmington, Delaware, USA), FDR Ltd (Dover, Delaware, United States), and First Data Merchant Services Corp. (Sunrise, Florida, USA) (represented by: initially, P. Bos and M. Nissen, then P. Bos, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially, R. Wainwright, W. Wils and V. Superti, then R. Wainwright and T. Christoforou, Agents)

Defendant:

Application for

annulment of the fifth indent of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2001/782/EC of 9 August 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/29.373 — Visa International) (OJ 2001 L 293, p. 24)

Operative part of the Order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on this case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on this case.

| 2. | The applicants and the Commission shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants and the Commission shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.

1

---
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Trip to Japan and Mongolia

# 									Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Trip to Japan and Mongolia							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

March 19, 2024

Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell will travel to Japan and Mongolia, March 19-23.  This will be Dr. Campbell’s first overseas trip as Deputy Secretary and will underscore the United States’ deep commitment to advancing freedom and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.

In Tokyo, the Deputy Secretary will meet with senior government officials to discuss preparations for next month’s official visit to Washington by Prime Minister Kishida.  The Deputy Secretary will also meet with his Japanese and Philippine counterparts to deepen trilateral cooperation towards a free and open, connected, prosperous, resilient, and secure Indo-Pacific.

In Ulaanbaatar, Deputy Secretary Campbell will meet with senior Mongolian officials.  The Deputy will highlight the Strategic Third Neighbor Partnership between the United States and Mongolia and the enduring friendship between the American and Mongolian people.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsDeputy Secretary of StateIndo-PacificJapanMongoliaOffice of the SpokespersonTravel

Back to Top
#### § 137.304 May Self-Governance Tribes buy back environmental services from the IHS?

Yes, Self-Governance Tribes may “buy back” project related services in their construction project agreement, including design and construction engineering, and environmental compliance services from the IHS in accordance with Section 508(f) of the Act [25 U.S.C. 458aaa-7(f)] and § 137.95, subject to the availability of the IHS's capacity to conduct the work.