alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George S. De Hierapolis, Appellant, *v.*William G. Webber, Respondent.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment rendered in the Municipal Court, eleventh district, borough of Manhattan.

Denis A. Spellissy, for appellant.

Edward J. Krug, Jr., for respondent.

Freedman, P. J.

This action was brought to'recover the sum of $99.75, alleged to be a balance due the'plaintiff under the terms of a contract to furnish brass railings for buildings erected by the defendant.

The facts, so far as they áre uncontradicted, are substantially as follows: In August, 1898,- one James C. Levy made a contract with the defendant, under which a quantity of railings were put-upon buildings then in course of erection by the defendant. On. November 12, 1898, the defendant paid Levy $50 to apply in payment for the railings so furnished. On November 19, 1898, the defendant, who up to that time supposed that Levy had contracted on his individual account, was informed that Levy and the plain- ■ tiff were partners, doing business under the name of the Metropolitan Brass Foundry' Co. The defendant, on. that day, made- his check payable to the order of thé;Metropolitan Brass Foundry Co;, for the sum of $350, and delivered it to Levy to apply in payment of the contract price of the railings. This check, it appears, was subsequently" indorsed and cashed by Levy, and at least the sum of $300 thereof paid to plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant paid to the plaintiff an amount, which, including the $50 payment -made to Levy on November 12th, and the $350 check of November 19,1$98, and a small discount allowed by the plaintiff, equalled the . amount due under the contract.

*790The plaintiff claiming that he never received the payment of November 12, 189.8, and only $300 of the check of November 19, 1898,'brought this action.

There was conflict of testimony as to whether Levy was in partnership with plaintiff," and as whether, if not ¿ partner, he was authorized to represent • the plaintiff in matters pertaining ' to the Metropolitan Brass Foundry Co., and to receive payments for- and on behalf of the plaintiff, .and .upon these questions the trial judge found in favor of the defendant. It does not appear that such finding was against -the weight of evidence,, or that; injustice has ' been doné. The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.

■ MacLean and Levéntritt, JJ., concur.,

. Judgment , affirmed, with costs to respondent. -
PUBLIC LAW 107–120—JAN. 15, 2002 115 STAT. 2383

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1714:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):

Dec. 6, considered and passed Senate.

Dec. 19, 20, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 107–120

107th Congress

An Act

To provide for the installation of a plaque to honor Dr. James Harvey Early

in the Williamsburg, Kentucky Post Office Building.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INSTALLATION OF PLAQUE TO HONOR DR. JAMES HARVEY

EARLY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The United States Postmaster General shall

install a plaque to honor Dr. James Harvey Early in the Williamsburg, Kentucky Post Office Building located at 1000 North Highway

23 West, Williamsburg, Kentucky 40769.

(b) CONTENTS OF PLAQUE.—The plaque installed under subsection (a) shall contain the following text:

‘‘Dr. James Harvey Early was born on June 14, 1808 in

Knox County, Kentucky. He was appointed postmaster of the

first United States Post Office that was opened in the town

of Whitley Courthouse, now Williamsburg, Kentucky in 1829.

In 1844 he served in the Kentucky Legislature. Dr. Early

married twice, first to Frances Ann Hammond, died 1860; and

then to Rebecca Cummins Sammons, died 1914. Dr. Early

died at home in Rockhold, Kentucky on May 24, 1885 at the

age of 77.’’.

Approved January 15, 2002.

Jan. 15, 2002

[S. 1714]
% Worker exposure 2 weeks, 5 days/week exposure, 30 days no exposure

% From PBPK_SeedTreatmentScenarios_CPFOS.xlsx, Seed treatment, applicator

% January 19, 2016

% Cecilia Tan

% Setting model parameters

use human_parameters_MRP

QPC = 31; % to get QALV = 8.3 L/min @BW = 69 kg

use preg_female_parameters

BWSW=1;%Set BW to a fixed value

BWST=69;%Set BW to 69kg

PREG=0;%Not pregnant

DZONE = 1;%Turn dermal exposure on

KDIS = 0.0;%daily dissipation

TSTOP=1392;%Simulation time in hours

% Dermal exposure

SAF=1; % Fraction of skin in contact with chlorpyrifos.

FAD=1; % Fraction of dose available to be absorbed. Values of <1 could be used if pesticide is encapsulated.

DERM =30.26;% dose in ug/kg

D3=5; %DAYS/WEEK

P2=8; %HRS/DAY

S2=0 ;%OFFSET FROM 0 START TIME (EG IF YOU WANT TO MODEL FROM MIDNIGHT, BUT DOSE AT 8 AM)

%W2=28; %28 day exposure

W2=14; %14 day exposure

% Inhalation exposure

CONCMGM=1.43E-5; % Inhalation concentration mg/m3. Value is largest value reported in monitoring data.

D3IN=5; %DAYS/WEEK

P2IN=8; %HRS/DAY

S2IN=0 ;%OFFSET FROM 0 START TIME (EG IF YOU WANT TO MODEL FROM MIDNIGHT, BUT DOSE AT 8 AM)

%W2IN=28; %28 day exposure

W2IN=14; %14 day exposure

prepare @clear@all

start @NoCallback

simall = [_time _rbcce _urinetcpy _cv*350.6 _cvo*334.5];%conc unit = ug/L

%save simall @file='applicator_seed_treatment_01192016' @format=ascii

save simall @file='applicator_seed_treatment_01212016' @format=ascii
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.525 Order for *ex parte* reexamination.

(a) If a substantial new question of patentability is found pursuant to § 1.515 or § 1.520, the determination will include an order for *ex parte* reexamination of the patent for resolution of the question. If the order for *ex parte* reexamination resulted from a petition pursuant to § 1.515(c), the *ex parte* reexamination will ordinarily be conducted by an examiner other than the examiner responsible for the initial determination under § 1.515(a).

(b) The notice published in the *Official Gazette* under § 1.11(c) will be considered to be constructive notice and *ex parte* reexamination will proceed.

[65 FR 76775, Dec. 7, 2000]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 175 (Friday, September 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21706]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5280-N-35]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

DATES: Effective Date: September 11, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, 
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and 
speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been 
determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: September 3, 2009.
Mark R. Johnston,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.
[FR Doc. E9-21706 Filed 9-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
Order entered September 2 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00470
- CR
EDWARD FRANK WILLIAM S, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Tri al Court Cause No. F13
- 24143
- I



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATES the appeal. Appellant’s brief was originally due on June 17, 2015. On July 1, 2015, appellant filed a motion seeking an extension until August 28, 2015 to file his brief. The Court granted the extension only until July 17, 2015. When the brief was not filed by July 31, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding the brief. We ADOPT the trial court’s findings that: (1) appellant is not indigent; (2) appellant is represented by retained counsel Thomas Pappas; and (3) Mr. Pappas did not appear at the hearing regarding appellant’s brief despite repeated attempts to contact him and requesting his presence. The trial court made no finding as to whether Mr. Pappas has abandoned the a ppeal.Accordingly, we ORDER appellate counsel Thomas Pappas to file appellant’s brief by

SEPTEMBER 18, 2015 . If the brief is not filed by that date, we will, without further notice, submit the appeal without briefs. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 38.8(b)(4).
We DI RECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to Thomas Pappas and the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.
/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
#### John E. Lanning *v.*Albert C. Twining et al.

[Decided July 31st, 1906.]

1. A defendant in equity is entitled to question the jurisdiction of the court for lack of proper service *in Umine*before answer.

2. In a suit by the receiver of a corporation against non-resident directors, to recover money lost to it by reason of their negligence and Improper conduct, the court acquired no jurisdiction *in personam*by service by publication and mailing only.

*Mr. Jolin S. Applegate,*for the complainant.

*Mr. Sherrerd Depue,*for the defendants.

Stevens, V. C.

This is a suit against the directors of the Monmouth Trust and Safe Deposit Company to recover money lost by reason of *574their negligent and' improper conduct. The defendants White & Yreeland have put in pleas to the jurisdiction, alleging that they are not residents of this state; that they have not been served with process, and that they have not been notified otherwise than by publication and mailing. The question is whether ilie pleas are a defense. Complainant argues that they are “premature;” that want of jurisdiction cannot be interposed at this stage of the proceedings. The court of errors and appeals, in *Wilson*v. *American Palace Car Co., 65 N. J. Eq. (20 Dick.) 780,*has held otherwise. The contention is without merit, and the case on this' branch of it is not arguable.

It is further contended, or rather suggested, that the directors of a New Jersey corporation stand, in respect of the protection guaranteed by the federal constitution, upon a different footing from ordinary defendants. No case is cited in support of this proposition, and it seems to be unsound. The legislature has not attempted to put non-resident directors, when they are sued for negligence, on any different footing, in respect of service of process, from any other class of persons when so sued. It has not sought to compel them to waive their constitutional privilege as a prerequisite to holding corporate office. The distinction made by the supreme court of the United States is between suits *in personam*and suits *in rem*or *quasi in rem. Freeman*v. *Alderson, 119 U. S. 185; 7 Sup. Ct. 165; 30 L. Ed. 372; Elsasser*v. *Haines, 52 N. J. Law (23 Vr.) 10; Smith*v. *Colloty, 69 N. J. Law (40 Vr.) 365; Elmendorf*v. *Elmendorf, 58 N. J. Eq. (13 Dick.) 113; Watkinson*v. *Watkinson, 67 N. J. Eq. (1 Robb.) 142; Hill*v. *Henry, 66 N. J. Eq. (21 Dick.) 150; Andrews*v. *Guayaquil and Quito Railway Co., 69 N. J. Eq. (3 Robb.) 211; Wilson*v. *Car Company, supra.*This is admitted to be a suit purely *in personam,*and I am quite unable to understand why the fourteenth amendment does not apply.

I think the pleas are good.
#### § 66.207 Other HHS regulations and policies that apply.

Several other regulations and policies apply to grants under this subpart. These include, but are not limited to:

[42 CFR part 50, subpart D](/on/2024-09-17/title-42/part-50/subpart-D)—Public Health Service grant appeals procedure

[42 CFR part 50, subpart F](/on/2024-09-17/title-42/part-50/subpart-F)—Responsibility of applicants for promoting objectivity in research for which PHS funding is sought.

[45 CFR part 16](/on/2024-09-17/title-45/part-16)—Procedures of the Departmental Grant Appeals Board

[45 CFR part 46](/on/2024-09-17/title-45/part-46)—Protection of human subjects

[45 CFR part 75](/on/2024-09-17/title-45/part-75)—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Award

[45 CFR part 76](/on/2024-09-17/title-45/part-76)—Governmentwide debarment and suspension (non procurement) and governmentwide requirements for drug-free workplace (grants)

[45 CFR part 80](/on/2024-09-17/title-45/part-80)—Nondiscrimination under programs receiving Federal assistance through the Department of Health and Human Services effectuation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

[45 CFR part 81](/on/2024-09-17/title-45/part-81)—Practice and procedure for hearings under [part 80 of this title](/on/2024-09-17/title-42/part-80)

[45 CFR part 84](/on/2024-09-17/title-45/part-84)—Nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap in programs and activities receiving or benefiting from Federal financial assistance

[45 CFR part 86](/on/2024-09-17/title-45/part-86)—Nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities receiving or benefiting from Federal financial assistance

[45 CFR part 91](/on/2024-09-17/title-45/part-91)—Nondiscrimination on the basis of age in HHS programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance

[48 FR 24556](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/48-FR-24556)—Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules published by the National Institutes of Health

[51 FR 16958](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/51-FR-16958) (May 7, 1986)—NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules.

Note:

This policy is subject to change, and interested persons should contact the Office of Biotechnology Activities, NIH, Suite 302, 6000 Executive Boulevard, MSC 7052, Bethesda, MD 20892-7052, (301) 496-9838 (not a toll-free number) to obtain references to the current version and any amendments.

[[49 FR 38116](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/49-FR-38116), Sept. 27, 1984, as amended at [66 FR 29501](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/66-FR-29501), May 31, 2001; [81 FR 3010](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/81-FR-3010), Jan. 20, 2016]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.452 Restoration of right of priority.

(a) If the international application has an international filing date which is later than the expiration of the priority period as defined by PCT Rule 2.4 but within two months from the expiration of the priority period, the right of priority in the international application may be restored upon request if the delay in filing the international application within the priority period was unintentional.

(b) A request to restore the right of priority in an international application under paragraph (a) of this section must be filed not later than two months from the expiration of the priority period and must include:

(1) A notice under PCT Rule 26*bis.*1(a) adding the priority claim, if the priority claim in respect of the earlier application is not contained in the international application;

(2) The petition fee as set forth in § 1.17(m); and

(3) A statement that the delay in filing the international application within the priority period was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.

(c) If the applicant makes a request for early publication under PCT Article 21(2)(b), any requirement under paragraph (b) of this section filed after the technical preparations for international publication have been completed by the International Bureau shall be considered as not having been submitted in time.

[72 FR 51563, Sept. 10, 2007, as amended at 78 FR 62407, Oct. 21, 2013]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

All, 

Faulk, Scott (OST) 

Friday, March 27, 2015 3:29 PM 

'Shawn'; Great Lakes, Chuck Howell (chowell@flygreatlakes.com); Great Lakes, Doug 

Voss (DVoss@flygreatlakes.com); Makani Kai, Richard Schuman ; Ron Hansen ; SeaPort 

Airlines, EAS Mailbox (eas@seaportair.com); Seaport/Wings of Alaska, Rob McKinney 

(rob@seaportair.com); 'Tim Sieber'; Tim Sieber 

'Citycouncil@cityofmerced.org'; 'Young, Janet'; Schlemmer, Kevin (OST) 

Essential Air SeNice at Merced, CA 

One carrier has proposed a modification to its original proposal-t6 serve Merced, CA. In order to continue to 

provide a fair carrier selection process, the Department is offering all carriers that originally proposed service at 

Merced an opportunity to amend their proposal, if they so choose. Please provide the Department with any 

amended proposals by April 6, 2015. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. 

Regards, 

Scott Faulk 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

202-366-9967 

,_,., 

0 

> 

N 

~ .. -- ::T•- ,. ..... ; • - . .. -
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the Morgan Keegan, Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31,
1998, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                          18,979
<RECEIVABLES>                                  425,918
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                            403,592
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                           13,821
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            376,938
<PP&E>                                          24,589
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,329,324
<SHORT-TERM>                                   109,600
<PAYABLES>                                     707,199
<REPOS-SOLD>                                   114,374
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                              6,899
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                              13,555
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,173
<OTHER-SE>                                     236,784
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,329,324
<TRADING-REVENUE>                               33,411
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            18,149
<COMMISSIONS>                                   26,910
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                    9,964
<FEE-REVENUE>                                    7,982
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,792
<COMPENSATION>                                  49,377
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,046
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      16,046
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,746
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk September 4, 2012

t0827 

# Order

September 4, 2012

144538

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144538

COA: 305632

Wayne CC: 07

- 011878

- 01

LAKARI KAREEM BERRY

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 27 , 2011

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).