alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### 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 Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 3.81 Issue of patent to assignee.

(a) *With payment of the issue fee:* An application may issue in the name of the assignee consistent with the application's assignment where a request for such issuance is submitted with payment of the issue fee, provided the assignment has been previously recorded in the Office. If the assignment has not been previously recorded, the request must state that the document has been filed for recordation as set forth in § 3.11.

(b) *After payment of the issue fee:* Any request for issuance of an application in the name of the assignee submitted after the date of payment of the issue fee, and any request for a patent to be corrected to state the name of the assignee, must state that the assignment was submitted for recordation as set forth in § 3.11 before issuance of the patent, and must include a request for a certificate of correction under § 1.323 of this chapter (accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.20(a)) and the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i) of this chapter.

(c) *Partial assignees.*

(1) If one or more assignee, together with one or more inventor, holds the entire right, title, and interest in the application, the patent may issue in the names of the assignee and the inventor.

(2) If multiple assignees hold the entire right, title, and interest to the exclusion of all the inventors, the patent may issue in the names of the multiple assignees.

[69 FR 29879, May 26, 2004]

###### 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.
41855.

#### LOVELESS v. LIFE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF TENNESSEE.

Pannell, Judge.

1. Where, as in the present case, the insured, on May 5, 1965, made application in writing for a policy of life insurance, which application provided: “The insurance applied for shall take effect when the policy applied for has been issued and actually delivered to and accepted by the applicant and the full first premium stipulated in the policy has been paid to and accepted by the Company, all during the life and continued insurability of every person proposed for insurance thereunder; until then no insurance shall be in force hereunder unless otherwise provided by the premium receipt originally attached to and bearing the same number and date as this application; . . . ”, and the first month’s premium was paid to the local agent of the insurance company on May 7, 1965, and a receipt issued therefor, after the defendant’s agent had knowledge that the applicant had been burned in an accidental fire but the receipt attached to the application (see *New York Life Ins. Co. v. Whitfield,*113 Ga. App. 266 (147 SE2d 829), where the receipt for premium pro*316vided for interim insurance) was not signed by the agent or delivered to insured, and the applicant died on May 9, 1965, and the day after the death the application and premium payment were received by the company and the company thereafter did actually issue a policy of insurance effective June 1, 1965, which was delivered by mail to counsel for the beneficiary suing on the policy, neither the application nor the policy constitutes a contract of insurance as there was no issuance or delivery and acceptance of the policy while the applicant was in life. See *Maddox v. Life*& *Cas. Ins. Co. of Tenn.,*79 Ga. App. 164 (53 SE2d 235); *Paulk v. State Mutual Life Ins. Co., 85*Ga. App. 413 (69 SE2d 777); and, *Sasser v. Coastal States Life Ins. Co.,*113 Ga. App. 17 (147 SE2d 5).

Argued March 7, 1966

Decided March 14, 1966.

*Clifford E. Thompson,*for appellant.

*Edenfield, Heyman & Sizemore, William H. Major,*for appellee.

2. The evidence in the present case, as stipulated by the parties, established without dispute the facts stated in Division 1 above. The trial court, therefore, did not err in directing the verdict for the defendant insurance company.

3. The direction of a verdict, where the evidence demands, it, is not a denial of a right of trial by jury, nor is it in conflict with an order of the court granting a trial by jury prior to the introduction of any evidence in the case. The court did not err, therefore, in refusing to submit the case to the jury.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...New Zealand Waitangi Day

# 									New Zealand Waitangi Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

February 3, 2023

On behalf of the Government and people of the United States of America, I extend my warm regards to the people of Aotearoa New Zealand as you commemorate the anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, on February 6. We also send our deepest sympathies to all Kiwis in the face of the recent unprecedented flooding. The United States remains committed to our joint efforts on a range of global challenges, including Climate Change, which is having such an impact in New Zealand and throughout the Pacific.

Our partnership is founded on shared values of democracy, fundamental freedoms, the rule of law, and a desire to protect our planet for future generations. We look forward to continuing our great work together in these efforts with Prime Minister Hipkins and congratulate him on his appointment.

Together, the United States and New Zealand are harnessing our relationship to address challenges, not only the climate crisis, but also the responsible use of technology, and bolstering security in the Indo-Pacific.

I am proud we celebrate over 80 years of formal diplomatic relations and much longer as friends. I look forward to seeing continued exchanges between our people – through business, tourism, education, and, of course, sports as we cheer on our athletes when Aotearoa New Zealand hosts the FIFA Women’s World Cup this year.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsClimate ChangeDemocracyIndo-PacificNew ZealandOffice of the SpokespersonRule of LawThe Secretary of StateTechnology

Back to Top
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 388/2005

of 8 March 2005         

adopting the specifications of the 2006 ad hoc module on transition from work into retirement provided for by Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 and amending Regulation (EC) No 246/2003

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 of 9 March 1998 on the organisation of a labour force sample survey in the Community (1), and in particular Article 4(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The detailed list of information to be collected in 2006 by the ad hoc module on transition from work into retirement shall be as set out in the Annex.

Article 2

In Section 3 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 246/2003, the point ‘Sample’ is replaced by the following:

‘Sample: The target age group for the sample for this module consists of persons aged 50 to 69. The complete set of variables of the labour force survey shall be collected for the sub-sample used for the ad hoc module. When the sample unit is the individual, no data on the other members of the household are required.’

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 March 2005.

For the Commission

Joaquín ALMUNIA            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 77, 14.3.1998, p. 3. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2257/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 336, 23.12.2003, p. 6).

(2)OJ L 34, 11.2.2003, p. 3.

(3)OJ L 197, 5.8.2003, p. 13.

(4)OJ L 170, 29.6.2002, p. 1. Decision as amended by Decision No 786/2004/EC (OJ L 138, 30.4.2004, p. 7).

----

ANNEX

LABOUR FORCE SURVEY

Specifications of the 2006 ad hoc module on transition from work into retirement

----
#### The People ex rel. Mattis Ripp, Relator, *v.*The Town Board of the Town of Lewis, Etc., et al., Defendants.

(Supreme Court, Onondaga Special Term,

May, 1899.)

1. Towns — Waiver of defect in the form of a mandamus to compel a town to pay a claim.

Where a town board has appeared generally and has demurred to an alternative writ of mandamus brought to compel it to assemble and consider the merits of the relator’s claims against the town, it is too late for the board to object that the writ does not run in the name of the People.

2. Same — Certificate of partial rejection of claim compelled.

When a town board fails to make a certificate that it has allowed claims in part and rejected them in part, as required by the Town Law (Laws of 1890, chap. 569, § 162), a writ of mandamus will issue to compel such action upon its part.

Demurrer to alternative writ of mandamus.

E. M. Bagg, for relator.

F. C. Schraub, for defendants.

Hiscock, J.

Some objections are urged by the defendants to the alternative writ herein which are not applicable upon the argument to sustain their demurrer. The defendants cannot avail themselves of the absence of the ordinary form whereby the writ is issued in the name of the People, even if material. The proper remedy for that was by motion before they had appeared generally in the action and demurred.

Notwithstanding the allegation in the writ and in the relator’s affidavit that the town board did not consider his bills upon the merits, I think the other, facts stated therein show that the town board did so consider and pass upon them upon the merits,, allowing them in part and rejecting them in part. Therefore, so far as the writ seeks to compel the town hoard to assemble and pass upon his claims upon the merits it is demurrable. From the facts as stated, however, the town board did not pass upon the claims and make *470the certificate as required by law. Section 162, chap. 569, Laws of 1890. It very likely may be material to relator that they should be so passed upon. In'this respect, therefore, a good ground is-presented for.the issuance.of the writ, and to this extent the demurrer is overruled.

. The defendants have leave to make a return to the writ at any time within twenty days upon payment of fifteen dollars costs.

Ordered accordingly.
#### Grand Trunk Western Railway Company *v.*Railroad Commission of Indiana et al.

[No. 20,769.

Filed October 25, 1906.]

1. Appeal and *Error.—Railroads.—Interlocking Devices.—Stat*utes.—An appeal from a decision in a suit to revise and review the action of the railroad commission, brought under the act of 1905 (Acts 1905, p. 83, §6, §5405f Burns 1905), if such a suit can be maintained, lies to the Appellate Court and not to the Supreme Court, p. 262.

2. Same.—Transfer.—Jurisdiction.—Where an appeal is taken to the Supreme Court and jurisdiction is in the Appellate Court, such appeal will be transferred to the Appellate Court, p. 262.

From Lake Circuit Court; *W. C. McMahan,*Judge.

Suit by the Grand Trunk Western Railway Company against the Railroad Commission of Indiana, and others. From a decree for defendants, plaintiff appeals.

*Transferred to Appellate Court.*

*Anderson, Parker & Crabill,*for appellant.

*E. C. Field, J. B. Peterson, H. R. Kurrie*and *C. V. McAdams,*for appellees.

Monks, J.

The Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Company, known as the “Monon,” filed with the railroad commission of this State a petition against appellant and another railroad company under the act of 1897 (Acts 1897, p. 237, §§5158a-5158h Burns 1901), to compel the construction, operation, and maintenance of an in*262terlocking device at points, in Lake county, Indiana, where said railroads cross the track of the Monon. The railroad commission granted the prayer of said petition and apportioned among the parties the cost of installing, maintaining, and operating said interlocking switch.

1. 2. This suit was brought by appellant in the court below to review and revise said action of the railroad commission, and purports to be brought under the provisions of section six of the railroad commission act (Acts 1905, p. 83, §5405f Burns 1905). Final judgment on démurrer to the amended complaint was rendered' against appellant. Said section six expressly provides that appeals from judgments of the circuit or superior courts, rendered in proceedings under said section six, shall be to the Appellate Court. In ordering this transfer, we do not decide that an action can or cannot be brought under said section six to review and revise the action of the railroad commission in proceedings under the interlocking switch act (Acts 1897, *supra),*as that is a question for the determination of the Appellate Court. This appeal is therefore transferred to the Appellate Court.
#### James E. SIMMONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. HH-99.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 27, 1978.

*610Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Stephen Lindsey Gorman and Sidney L. Matthew, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

An information alleged that appellant committed a sexual battery and in the process thereof used or threatened to use a deadly weapon contrary to Section 794.-011(3), Florida Statutes, (1975) (Count I) and further alleged that appellant committed a robbery contrary to Section 812.-13(2)(a) (Count II). Appellant was found guilty by a jury of sexual battery through the use of a firearm and of petit larceny, a lesser included offense of Count II. Appellant was orally adjudicated guilty of these offenses and was sentenced to imprisonment of ninety-nine years as to Count I and to a consecutive term of sixty days as to Count II. The written judgment and sentence, however, reflects that appellant was adjudicated guilty of “sexual battery” (rather than sexual battery through the use of a deadly weapon as charged in the information) and was sentenced to a term of ninety-nine years, but makes no disposition concerning Count II.

Appellant’s convictions are affirmed. The judgment is reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to correct the judgment so as to conform to the jury’s verdict and to the court’s oral pronouncement. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 13 , 2020

.

In The


## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 20

- 00391

- CR

VIRGIL LEROY JOHNSON , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. 1601481

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A ppellant ple a d ed guilty to the offense of indecen cy with a child by

exposure , ple a d ed true to two enhancement paragr a phs, and was sentenced to
prison for forty years on January 8, 2020. No timely motion for n ew trial was filed

. Appellant ’ s notice of appeal was not filed until May 8, 2020

.

A defendant ’ s notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after sentence is
imposed when the defendant has not filed a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App.

P. 26.2(a)(1). A notic e of appeal that complies with the requirements of Texas Rule2

of Appellate P rocedure 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction.

Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If an appeal is not
timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the
merits of the appeal. Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to
dismiss the appeal. Id.

We dismiss th e appeal

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Spain, Hassan, and Poi ss ant

. D o Not Publish

— T ex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
```

[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

 
           FLEXIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND QUALITY EDUCATION
=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                      ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

         HEARING HELD IN BRADENTON, FLORIDA, FEBRUARY 16, 2001
                               __________

                            Serial No. 107-1
                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800  
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001


```
#### § 11.96 By whom loans may be made.

Loans will be made by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, to any veteran, upon his promissory note secured by his adjusted service certificate, in any amount in even dollars not less than $10 and not in excess of the loan value of the certificate at the date the loan is made. Each certificate contains on its face a table for determining the loan value of the certificate but at no time is the loan value less than fifty per centum of the face value.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2320 

To restore the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission 

over amusement park rides which are at a fixed site, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2007 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. GEORGE MILLER

of California, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. 

SCHAKOWSKY, and Ms. NORTON) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To restore the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission over amusement park rides which are at 

a fixed site, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘National Amusement 

5 Park Ride Safety Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. JURISDICTION OVER FIXED SITE AMUSEMENT 

7 RIDES. 

8 Section 3(a)(1) of the Consumer Product Safety Act 

9 (15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘, and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 2320 IH

1 which is not permanently fixed to a site. Such term does 

2 not include such a device which is permanently fixed to 

3 a site.’’ and inserting a period. 

4 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

5 There are authorized to be appropriated to the Con6 sumer Product Safety Commission $500,000 for each fis7 cal year to enable the Commission to carry out the Con8 sumer Product Safety Act as amended by this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
§ 1.486 Disclosure of information related to infection with the human immunodeficiency virus to public health authorities. ( a ) In the case of any record which is maintained in connection with the performance of any program or activity relating to infection with the HIV, information may be disclosed to a Federal, State, or local public health authority, charged under Federal or State law with the protection of the public health, and to which Federal or State law requires disclosure of such record, if a qualified representative of such authority has made a written request that such record be provided as required pursuant to such law for a purpose authorized by such law. In the case of a State law, such law must, in order for VA to be able to release patient name and address information in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 5701(f)(2), provide for a penalty or fine or other sanction to be assessed against those individuals who are subject to the jurisdiction of the public health authority but fail to comply with the reporting requirements.
( b ) A person to whom a record is disclosed under this section may not redisclose or use such record for a purpose other than that for which the disclosure was made.
[60 FR 63929, Dec. 13, 1995, as amended at 85 FR 64043, Oct. 9, 2020]
**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 Illini Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I DennisB. Guthrie, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Dennis  B. Guthrie   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Dennis B.  Guthrie.      |
| Chief  Financial Officer |
| August 11,  2005         |

 

----
Editorial Note on Part 84
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 84.72 Breathing tubes; minimum requirements. Flexible breathing tubes used in conjunction with breathing apparatus shall be designed and constructed to prevent: ( a ) Restriction of free head movement;
( b ) Disturbance of the fit of facepieces and mouthpieces;
( c ) Interference with the wearer's activities; and
( d ) Shutoff of airflow due to kinking, or from chin or arm pressure.