alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- 492 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

302 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. SAVAGE

Cite as 302 Neb. 492

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. 

Courtney J. Savage, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed March 15, 2019. No. S-17-1166.

supplemental opinion

Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: Susan

I. Strong, Judge. Supplemental opinion: Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled.

Darik J. Von Loh, of Hernandez Frantz, Von Loh, appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Austin N. Relph 

for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the 

appellant, Courtney J. Savage, concerning our opinion in State 

v. Savage, 301 Neb. 873, 920 N.W.2d 692 (2018). We overrule 

the motion, but we modify the opinion as follows:

In the subsection “(a) Authentication,” after the fourth 

sentence of the fourth paragraph, we insert the following 

language:

As for Savage’s contention that the State did not properly 

authenticate messages sent to him by others, we again 

disagree. The State was required only to introduce testimony sufficient to establish that the evidence was what 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

04/05/2019 12:06 AM CDT
- 493 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

302 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. SAVAGE

Cite as 302 Neb. 492

the State claimed it to be. The State did not claim that 

messages sent by others were anything more than messages sent to Savage’s cell phone. See State v. Elseman, 

287 Neb. 134, 841 N.W.2d 225 (2014).

Savage, 301 Neb. at 885, 920 N.W.2d at 703.

In subsection “(b) Hearsay,” following the second to the last 

paragraph, we insert the following paragraph:

We also reject Savage’s argument that text messages 

sent to his cell phone by unidentified individuals contained 

inadmissible hearsay. Hearsay is “a statement, other than 

one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or 

hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(3) (Reissue 2016). 

Messages sent to Savage’s cell phone were not offered 

for the truth of the matters asserted. They were offered to 

prove that the statements were made.

Savage, 301 Neb. at 887, 920 N.W.2d at 704.

The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.

 Former opinion modified.

 Motion for rehearing overruled.
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 Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven Kass, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/Steven Kass*
---------------
Steven Kass
Chief Financial Officer

Date:  May 13, 2008



* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
§ 93.507 Ex parte communications. ( a ) No party, attorney, or other party representative may communicate *ex parte* with the ALJ on any matter at issue in a case, unless both parties have notice and an opportunity to participate in the communication. However, a party, attorney, or other party representative may communicate with DAB staff about administrative or procedural matters.
( b ) If an *ex parte* communication occurs, the ALJ will disclose it to the other party and make it part of the record after the other party has an opportunity to comment.
( c ) The provisions of this section do not apply to communications between an employee or contractor of the DAB and the ALJ.
99–008

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 107–411

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 476, CHILD

CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT

APRIL 16, 2002.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mrs. MYRICK, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H. Res. 388]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 388, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 476, the

Child Custody Protection Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides two hours of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the

bill. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or

without instructions.

Æ
###### 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 Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 2.115 Amendment of pleadings in a cancellation proceeding.

Pleadings in a cancellation proceeding may be amended in the same manner and to the same extent as in a civil action in a United States district court.

[48 FR 23136, May 23, 1983]

###### 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.
#### § 351.11 Rebuttal proceedings.

Written rebuttal statements shall be filed at a time designated by the Copyright Royalty Judges upon conclusion of the hearing of the direct case, in the same form and manner as the written direct statement, except that the claim or the requested rate shall not have to be included if it has not changed from the written direct statement. Further proceedings at the rebuttal stage shall follow the schedule ordered by the Copyright Royalty Judges.

[70 FR 30905, May 31, 2005, as amended at 71 FR 53329, Sept. 11, 2006]
Editorial Note on Part 84
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 84.23 Fee revision. ( a ) Each fee schedule will remain in effect for at least 2 years and will be revised as needed to reflect cost increases identified in biennial reviews.
( b ) Fee schedule updates will be proposed in a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register.
( c ) The current fee schedules will be published in Appendix A and Appendix B of this part and will remain in effect until the effective date of the new fee schedules published in the Federal Register.
###### 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.

#### § 42.403 Time for filing.

A petition for a derivation proceeding must be filed within the one-year period beginning on the date of the first publication of a claim to an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the earlier application's claim to the allegedly derived invention.
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 Bel Fuse Inc (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the "Report"), I, Colin Dunn, Vice President of Finance of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented
      and consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.





Dated:
      August 9, 2006




By:
            /s/ Colin
              DunnColin
                Dunn, Vice President of
              Finance
#### § 10.28 Proof of death evidence.

Evidence required in establishing proof of death under the act, as amended, shall conform with the requirements set forth in the regulations of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
```

[107th Congress Public Law 140]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ140.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 12]]

Public Law 107-140
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To amend title 18 of the United States Code to correct a technical error 
in the codification of title 36 of the United States Code. <<NOTE: Feb. 
                         8, 2002 -  [S. 1888]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTION OF ERROR IN THE CODIFICATION OF 
                            TITLE 36.

    Section 2320(e)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``section 220706 of title 36'' and inserting ``section 220506 
of title 36''.

    Approved February 8, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 1888:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 147 (2001):
                                    Dec. 20, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.
                                                        Vol. 148 (2002):
                                    Feb. 5, 6, considered and passed 
                                        House.

                                  <all>
```
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2010

y0621 

# Order

June 28, 2010

140341

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140341 COA: 293803 Berrien CC: 1982-002151-FY CHARLES STEVEN KENT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the December 1, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### *Samuel Leake *against*Alexander Chambers.

IN DEBT, ON BOND, &C.

Buie, to bring’ money into court, where suit depending ir Chancery, refused. *(a)*

THE defendant gave a bond to the plaintiff, 'secured by mortgage on real estate. A suit was commenced in this court on the bond, and a bill for foreclosure filed in Chancery.

Mr. *Pkving,*

on behalf of the defendant, moved for a rule, that the defendant have leave on *Thursday*of the *Term,*to bring into court, the debt and costs; and cited *Pat.*256, sec. 10.

Mr. *Leake,*

maintained; that the section cited, embraced those cases, where the debt is not secured by mortgage; *37and that this court have not the power to grant such a motion, where a suit is depending upon a mortgage Chancery, as in the present case. He cited *Pat.*144.

Mr. *Ewing.*

There is no incongruity in the statutes 'cited; but if there be, the one page 256 is last, and must govern the case.

(a)

**Cited in *Den, Smith vs. Kimble, 4 Hal. 335. Hamilton vs. Dobbs, 4 C. E. Green 228.*

By the *Court.*

The motion cannot prevail. The court of Chancery, is the proper place for such an application, where a suit is there depending, as is now the case. There may be equitable considerations, governing the amount to be brought in; which this court cannot regard, and for which the Chancery is adapted.

Rule refused.
§ 17.526 Definitions. The following definitions apply to §§ 17.525 through 17.530: *Educational loan* means a loan, government or commercial, made for educational purposes by institutions that are subject to examination and supervision in their capacity as lending institutions by an agency of the United States or of the state in which the lender has its principal place of business. Loans must be for the actual costs paid for tuition, and other reasonable educational expenses such as living expenses, fees, books, supplies, educational equipment and materials, and laboratory expenses. Loans must be obtained from a government entity, a private financial institution, a school, or any other authorized entity stated in this definition. The following loans do not qualify for the SELRP: ( 1 ) Loans obtained from family members, relatives, or friends;
( 2 ) Loans made prior to, or after, the individual's qualifying education;
( 3 ) Any portion of a consolidated loan that is not specifically identified with the education and purposes for which the SELRP may be authorized, such as home or auto loans merged with educational loans;
( 4 ) Loans for which an individual incurred a service obligation for repayment or agreed to service for future cancellation;
( 5 ) Credit card debt;
( 6 ) Parent Plus Loans;
( 7 ) Loans that have been paid in full;
( 8 ) Loans that are in default, delinquent, not in a current payment status, or have been assumed by a collection agency;
( 9 ) Loans not obtained from a bank, credit union, savings and loan association, not-for-profit organization, insurance company, school, and other financial or credit institution which is subject to examination and supervision in its capacity as a lending institution by an agency of the United States or of the state in which the lender has its principal place of business;
( 10 ) Loans for which supporting documentation is not available;
( 11 ) Loans that have been consolidated with loans of other individuals, such as spouses, children, friends, or other family member; or
( 12 ) Home equity loans or other noneducational loans.
*SELRP* means the Specialty Education Loan Repayment Program established in §§ 17.525 through 17.530.
*State* means a State as defined in 38 U.S.C. 101(20), or a political subdivision of such a State.
*VA* means the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Summary of Meeting with the National Mining Association

March 31, 2015

List of Attendees

Erika Farris, EPA

Amanda Aspatore, NMA

Pete Ford, EPA

Bryan Rittenhouse, EPA

Mary Ellen Levine, EPA

Greg Schaner, EPA

Kevin Weiss, EPA

On phone:

Sam Brown, Hunton and Williams

Jesse Pritts, EPA

Summary of Meeting

During the meeting, EPA discussed further with the National Mining Association (NMA) and its legal 

representative the applicability of the Construction and Development (C&D) Effluent Limitation 

Guideline (ELG) to stormwater discharges at mining operations. EPA discussed with NMA potential 

changes to the mining sector-specific requirements that would clarify the applicability of the effluent 

limits from the rule to the categories of construction activities at a mine that were analyzed under the 

rule. EPA also discussed with NMA potential limits that could apply to pre-active mining earth 

disturbances that are not subject to limits from the C&D ELG.
#### § 205.14 Court requests to the Register of Copyrights pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 411(b)(2).

Where there is an allegation that a copyright registration certificate includes inaccurate information with knowledge that it was inaccurate and the inaccuracy of the information, if known, would have caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse registration, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 411(b)(2), the court shall request the opinion of the Register of Copyrights to advise the court whether the inaccurate information, if known, would have caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse registration. The request should be sent to the General Counsel of the Copyright Office via email to *411filings@copyright.gov*. Attachments to a single email should be no greater than 20 MB in total. If submission of a request via email is not feasible, please contact the Office of the General Counsel by telephone during normal business hours at 202-707-8380.

[85 FR 10605, Feb. 25, 2020]
|                                                                                 |  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|
| You are here: NODC Home >               OCL Home >OCL Products > WOD01 |

**WORLD OCEAN DATABASE 2001*****World Ocean Database 2001*** (WOD01)  is an update of *World Ocean Database 1998 (WOD98). WOD01 expands on WOD98by including new variables, data types, and additional historical aswell as modern observations. For ordering information, contactNODC Services; and for technical help, go to Help Desk.**For first-time users** (product overview overview.pdf) -  Changes from WOD98v2 to WOD01 
 
-  WOD01 Online Data  (Geographically sorted data)
 
-  WOD01 Online Data  (Time sorted data)
 
-  WOD01 Updates
WOD01 Data updates
WOD01 Comments about data updates
WOD01 Comments on category updates

-  WOD01  CD-ROM contents 
 
-  WOD01 Documentation
 
-  WOD01 Code Tables
 
-  WOD01 Programs
WOD01 Program corrections

-  WOD01 Utilities
 
-  WOD01 Help Desk
 
-  WOD01 Frequently Asked Questions
 
-  WOD01 Atlas Series
**|****Site Map****|****Access Data****|****Submit        Data****|****Intended        Use of the Data ?****|****Customer        Service****|**
Date      last modified: Wed, 20-Nov-2002 21:41 UTC       Website problems? Contact the webmaster
  NOAA-NESDIS-National        Oceanographic Data CenterPrivacy        Policy | Disclaimer *
#### Shannon & Co., *et al. v.*McElroy.

*Assumpsit.*

(Decided Dec. 19, 1911.

57 South. 118.)

1. *Assumpsit; Action; Plea.*— Want of consideration is available under the general issue, in assumpsit, and under such plea defendant may prove any matter showing that plaintiff never had any ■cause of action or that he ought not to recover.

2. *Same; Implied Promise; Consideration.*— An express or implied promise to sustain assumpsit requires a legal consideration for its support.

Appeal from Walker Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. T. L. Sowell.

Assumpsit by W. P. McElroy against Shannon & Company, and another. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

The 3rd plea is as follows: There is no consideration for the account sued on.

D. A. McGrbgory, for appellant.

The court erred in striking plea *3.*— Olosky *v. Enslen>*103 Ala. 97; 3 Ala. 316. It set up a defense which was required to be specially pleaded. — 4 Mayf. 484. The court erred in failing to grant defendant’s motion for a new *trial.-*— S'O; *Ry. Oo.-v. Lollar,*135 Ala. 379; 108 Ala. 233; 131 Ala. 422.

J. D. Aoufe, and M. B. McCollum, for appellee.

The matters set up by plea 3 were available under the general issue. — 4 Cyc. 348. The evidence was in conflict, and hence, the court did not err in refusing the affirmative charge, or in declining to grant motion for new trial.

WALKER, P. J.

The defendant was not prejudiced by the action of the court in striking his third plea. The *520defense of want of consideration was available to him under his plea of the general issue. In assumpsit, under the general issue, any matter which shows that the plaintiff never had any cause of action, or that, ex aequo et bono, he ought not to recover, may be given in evidence. That plea puts upon the plaintiff the burden of proving every fact which is an essential constituent of his cause of action.

The express or implied promise upon which such action is based requires a consideration for its legal support and existence; and the plaintiff cannot maintain his action when the evidence shows that the promise counted on was without *consideration.*—Matthews *v. Turner,*2 Stew. & P. 239; *Robinson v. Windham,*9 Port. 397; *Ala. Gold Life Ins. Co. v. Mobile Mutual Ins. Co.,*81 Ala. 329, 1 South. 561; 4 Cyc. 353; 2 Ency. of Pleading & Pr. 1029.

In view of the conflicting evidence set out in the bill of exceptions, the assignments of error based upon the refusal of the court to give the general affirmative charge requested by the defendant, and to grant his motion for a new trial, are clearly without merit.

Affirmed.
#### § 1.952 Preservation of evidence.

VA must take care to preserve all files and records that may be needed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prove its claims in court. VA ordinarily should include certified copies of the documents that form the basis for the claim when referring such claims to DOJ for litigation. VA shall provide originals of such documents immediately upon request by DOJ.

(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3711; 38 U.S.C. 501)

[69 FR 62200, Oct. 25, 2004]