alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George W. Kingston, Respondent, *v.*Harry Berry, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant rendered on the 20th day of February, 1893, in the District Court of the city of Hew York for the tenth judicial district.

W. Stebbins Smith, for appellant.

J. C. Julius Langbein, for respondent.

Leventritt, J.

The plaintiff, a subcontractor under the defendant, recovered judgment for a. balance due on certain plastering in the house of one Hannah J. Allen, which the defendant had agreed to erect. A written contract was entered into between the parties .to this action, and therein reference was made to the plans and specifications according to which all the work, including the plastering, was to be done; no reference was, however, made to the general contract between the defendant and Mrs. Allen.

It was admitted that the balance had not been paid, the defendant maintaining his. right to withhold it on account of plaintiff’s, defective work. Upon hearing the evidence on the issue thus raised, the' court found against the defendant and his just conclusion, involving merely the solution of a conflict of evidence, we cannot disturb. Conroy v. Allen, 23 Misc. Rep. 125.

The appellant, however, predicates error on the exclusion of the general contract between Mm and Mrs. Allen. But none of its *804conditions were' imported into the plaintiff’s plastering contract, which was an. entirely independent agreement. Further examination of. the excluded contract shows that none-of its provisions affect the rights of the parties. ’ '■

The -judgment should, therefore, be affirmed.

Freedmae, P. J., concurs.

MacLean, J. (Dissenting.)

As subcontractor the plaintiff agreed tb plaster the house *“*according' to plans and specifications,” whiqh required -all mortar to be applied in the best manner, welltrowelled, leaving the. surface' straight and. true; .to. repair and make good all blemishes and damages to' plastering by other workmen, and that the1 entire work in all its parts be done in a workmanlike and substantial manner and to be- approved by the archi-. tect.. This he-did not do, by his own-admissions. ■ According to. the evidence, the contractor-, the defendant, had to throw off, or did throw off, for the plaintiff’s remissness more than the amount claimed herein, upon the settlement with .the owner, whose,son testified that the wind came through behind, the window casings, because of. the bad plastering, and'that its unsightliness was .to be covered by wall papering. It was not a compliance with his covenant to repair or offer to repair the blemishes and damages after the owner had moved into her house, in which the plaintiff had left his work to'be a discomfort and ah.eyesore. . Ror.-should he, after so acquitting himself)" be allowed compensation " as "’for work done, in all its parts in a workmanlike and substantial manner.

Judgment affirmed, with" costs to the respondent. ■
#### § 20.706 Rule 706. Designation of Member or Members to conduct the hearing.

Hearings will be conducted by a Member or panel of Members of the Board. Where a proceeding has been assigned to a panel, the Chairman, or the Chairman's designee, shall designate one of the Members as the presiding Member.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7102, 7107)

[84 FR 187, Jan. 18, 2019]
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 280/2005

of 18 February 2005         

fixing the rates of the refunds applicable to eggs and egg yolks exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in eggs (1), and in particular Article 8(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 and in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75, exported in the form of goods listed in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75, are fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 February 2005.

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

Done at Brussels, 18 February 2005.

For the Commission

Günter VERHEUGEN            

Vice-President

----

(1)OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 49. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003 (OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 177, 15.7.2000, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 886/2004 (OJ L 168, 1.5.2004, p. 14).

----

ANNEX

Rates of the refunds applicable from 21 February 2005 to eggs and egg yolks exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty

----

(1)  The destinations are as follows:

----
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2340 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand coverage of 

bone mass measurements under part B of the Medicare Program to 

all individuals at clinical risk for osteoporosis. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2007 

Mr. BURGESS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand 

coverage of bone mass measurements under part B of 

the Medicare Program to all individuals at clinical risk 

for osteoporosis. 

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 ‘‘Medicare Osteoporosis 

5 Measurement Act of 2007’’. 


jlentini on PRODPC74 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2340 IH

1 SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF BONE MASS MEASUREMENTS FOR 

2 ALL INDIVIDUALS AT CLINICAL RISK FOR 

3 OSTEOPOROSIS. 

4 (a) COVERAGE.—Section 1861(rr)(2)(A) of the Social 

5 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(rr)(2)(A)) is amended to 

6 read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(A) an individual, including an estrogen8 deficient woman, at clinical risk for 

9 osteoporosis;’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 subsection (a) applies with respect to items and services 

12 furnished on or after October 1, 2007. 

Æ 


jlentini on PRODPC74 with BILLS
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 201 

To authorize 150,000 incremental vouchers for tenant-based rental assistance 

under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 to help 

meet the housing needs of low-income families. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. ROTHMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To authorize 150,000 incremental vouchers for tenant-based 

rental assistance under section 8 of the United States 

Housing Act of 1937 to help meet the housing needs 

of low-income families. 

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 ‘‘Housing Opportunities 

5 Made Easier Act’’ or the ‘‘HOME Act’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 201 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN INCREMENTAL SECTION 8 RENTAL AS2 SISTANCE VOUCHERS. 

3 (a) PROVISION OF INCREMENTAL VOUCHERS.—Sub4 ject only to the appropriation of sufficient amounts pursu5 ant to subsection (b), in fiscal year 2008 the Secretary 

6 of Housing and Urban Development shall provide to public 

7 housing agencies tenant-based rental housing assistance 

8 under section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 

9 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)) for 150,000 incremental 

10 vouchers, and shall renew such vouchers in each fiscal year 

11 thereafter. 

12 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

13 are authorized to be appropriated— 

14 (1) for fiscal year 2008, such sums as may be 

15 necessary to provide the incremental vouchers de16 scribed in subsection (a); and 

17 (2) in each fiscal year thereafter, such sums as 

18 may be necessary to renew the vouchers described in 

19 subsection (a) for that year. 

20 Any amounts appropriated pursuant to this subsection 

21 shall remain available until expended. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
NO. 07-09-0039-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEA LS FOR THE SEV ENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMAR ILLO PANELC JUNE 3, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ JASON E . STEELY, APP ELLANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APP ELLEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY ; NO . 2 00 7- 41 70 68 ; H ON ORAB LE C EC ILG. P URYE AR , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C .J., and HAN COCK an d PIRTLE , JJ. ABATE MENT AN D RE MAND Fo ll ow in g a pl ea o f n otg ui lty, Appellan t, Ja so n E. S te el y, wa s con vi cte d bya ju ry of possession of a controlled substance, a state j ail felony. The jury sentenced Appel lant ton in et ee n mo nt hsi n a sta te j ai l fa ci li ty. Th e cl er k’ s re co rd a nd rep orte r’ s rec ord ha ve b ot h been fil ed. Ap pellant’s brief was due to b e filed on April 16, 200 9, but has yet t o be filed.2

Neither has a motion for e xtension of time been filed. By letter dated April 29, 2009, thi s Court notified Appell ant’s appo inted coun sel, Kel ly Cl ark, of the d efect and e xpla ined that failure to fil e the brie f by May 11 , 2009, wo uld resul t in t he app eal being abated and the ca us e re ma nd ed to th e tr ia l c ou rt fo r furth er p ro ce ed in gs . SeeTex . R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2) an d (3 ). C ou ns el d id n otre sp on d toth e Co ur t’ s n ot ic e no r fil e Ap pe ll an t’ s b ri ef
. Therefore, we now abate this ap p eal an d rem and the cause to the trial court for further p ro ce ed in gsp ursu an t t o Ru le3 8. 8( b) (2 ) a nd (3 ) o f t heT exasR ul eso f A pp el la te P ro c e d u re . U p o n re ma n d , th e t ri a l co u rts h a l l u ti l i z e w h a te v e r me a n s n e c e s s ary t o de te rmi neth e fo ll ow in g: 1. whether Appell anth asb ee n de ni ed e ffe cti ve a ss is ta nce of counsel gi ve n ap po in te d co un se l’ s f ai lu re tofi lea b ri ef ; 2. whether App ellant stil l desi res to prosecute thi s appeal ; and, if so 3. whether appo inted coun sel shou ld be removed and new counsel appointed to pursue this appeal. Should it be d etermined that App ellant d oes wan t to continue the appeal and the trial court determines App ellant i s entitled to new a ppointed counsel or has retaine d new counsel, the n ame, add ress, teleph one number, and state bar n umber of the newl yappointed or newly-retained counsel shall be provid ed to the Clerk of t his Court. Fin ally, th e tri al co urt s ha ll e x ec ut e fi nd in gso f f act, co nc lu si on s o f l aw , a nd a nyn ec es sa ry orde rs it may enter regardi ng the aforementioned issues and cause its findings, co nclusions, and orders, if any, to be included in a suppl emental clerk's record. A su pplemental reporter’s3

record of the he aring, if an y, shall alsobe i ncluded in the appella te record. Fin ally, the trial court sha ll file the supplemental clerk's record an d the sup plemental repo rter's record, if any, with the Clerk of this Co urt by July 15, 2009. It is so o rdered.

Per Curiam Do not publish.
§ 16.110 Expedited review procedures for certain kinds of research involving no more than minimal risk, and for minor changes in approved research. ( a ) The Secretary of HHS has established, and published as a Notice in the Federal Register, a list of categories of research that may be reviewed by the IRB through an expedited review procedure. The Secretary will evaluate the list at least every 8 years and amend it, as appropriate, after consultation with other federal departments and agencies and after publication in the Federal Register for public comment. A copy of the list is available from the Office for Human Research Protections, HHS, or any successor office.
( b ) ( 1 ) An IRB may use the expedited review procedure to review the following: ( i ) Some or all of the research appearing on the list described in paragraph (a) of this section, unless the reviewer determines that the study involves more than minimal risk;
( ii ) Minor changes in previously approved research during the period for which approval is authorized; or
( iii ) Research for which limited IRB review is a condition of exemption under § 16.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), and (d)(7) and (8).
( 2 ) Under an expedited review procedure, the review may be carried out by the IRB chairperson or by one or more experienced reviewers designated by the chairperson from among members of the IRB. In reviewing the research, the reviewers may exercise all of the authorities of the IRB except that the reviewers may not disapprove the research. A research activity may be disapproved only after review in accordance with the nonexpedited procedure set forth in § 16.108(b).
( c ) Each IRB that uses an expedited review procedure shall adopt a method for keeping all members advised of research proposals that have been approved under the procedure.
( d ) The department or agency head may restrict, suspend, terminate, or choose not to authorize an institution's or IRB's use of the expedited review procedure.
# AirWisconsin A I R LINES C 0 RP0 RAT I 0 N September02, 2016 U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 1200NewJersey Avenue, SE. West Building, ground floor, Room W12-140 Washington, D.C. 20590 RE: Exemption 10684 renewal, Docketnumber: FAA-2012-1278 Dear Sir: In accordance with the Code ofFederal Regulations, 14 CFR 11.63, AirWisconsin Airlines Corporation (AWI) petitions for a renewal ofexemption 10684. Exemption number 10684 provides relieffrom Title 14, Code ofFederal Regulations 121.652 (a) and (c). When granted, this will allow a new Air Wisconsin pilot in command (PIC), who is subject to higher landing weather minimum requirements, to operate to the normal, lower Category I minimums under the stipulated conditions. No changes to the exemption are requested. The conditions and circumstances, in regard to public interest and equivalent levels ofsafety, which warranted the original grant ofexemption, continue to exist. This exemption has been in use sinceJanuary of2012 but the similar exemption 5549 has been in use since December, 1991 with no known compromise ofsafety. The grantingofthis exemption is not a controversial issue. Air Wisconsin, in accordance with the provisions of 14 CFR 11.87 (a-d), Exceptions to Publication ofSummary ofPetition for Exemption, requests that a find ofgood cause be made for waiving publication in the Federal Register. No precedents will be set by grantingtherequested reliefand this request is identical to previously approved requests. Air Wisconsin therefore requests that publication and the associated comment period be waived. A summary ofthis petition as required by 14 CFR 11.81, is offered below: Summary ofAir Wisconsin Airlines Corporation Petition Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp., as a Part 121 certificateholder, petitions for an exemption form 14 CFR 121.652 (a) and (c). This exemption permits a pilot in command under Part 121 to conduct an instrument approach procedure to the weather minima prescribed by this exemption during the first I00 hours ofservice as a pilot in command, in the type ofairplane he or she is operating, using an alternative means approved by the Administrator ofsatisfying 14 CFR 121.652 (a) and (c), subject to specified conditions and limitations.

Sincerely

Michael S. Melotte FlightTraining Standards Development Manager (920) 749-7534 Michael.Melotte@airwis.com

W6390 Challenger Drive, Suite 203 • Appleton, WI 54914-9120 Phone: 920-739-5123
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-50874 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BUDDY RAY GUNN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-93-CR-34

- - - - - - - - - - June 21, 1996 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Buddy Ray Gunn appeals from the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial, filed pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. He contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion without a hearing, as he presented newly discovered evidence that was material and which would probably have resulted in either his acquittal or the mitigation of his sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion byNo. 95-50874 - 2 - denying the motion without a hearing as review of the evidence demonstrates that it was not material and would not have changed the result of Gunn’s trial or sentence. See United States v. MMR Corp. , 954 F.2d 1040, 1046-47 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.
1st Amendment to the ClubCorp, Inc. Executive Stock Option Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.4 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO THE CLUBCORP, INC. 
 EXECUTIVE STOCK OPTION PLAN 
  
 This First Amendment to the ClubCorp, Inc. Executive Stock Option Plan (the “Amendment”) of ClubCorp, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), is executed and delivered as of the 13th day of August,
2003 by the Company pursuant to the terms of Section 9 of the Club Corp, Inc. Executive Stock Option Plan, as amended (the “Plan”). 
  
 RECITALS: 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company originally established the Plan effective as of August 31, 1995; 
  
 WHEREAS, the Plan was previously amended by the First Amendment to the Club Corporation International Executive Stock Option
Plan, effective as of August 31, 1995 and as further amended by Amendment Two to the Club Corporation International Executive Stock Option Plan, effective as of April 14, 1998; 
  
 WHEREAS, on December 22, 2000, the Company transferred 1,379,500 shares from the Plan to the Company’s Omnibus Stock
Plan (“Omnibus Plan”), which shares were previously registered on Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-96568; 
  
 WHEREAS, the Plan was restated effective as of January 1, 2001; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has adopted this Amendment to the Plan by unanimous written consent in lieu
of a special meeting of the Board of Directors dated _August 15_, 2003, to decrease the total number of shares authorized to be issued under the Plan to reflect the total number of shares that the Board of Directors has authorized to be
issued under the Plan pursuant to its past actions and to reflect the transfer of 1,822,500 unused shares under the Executive Plan to the Omnibus Plan. 
  
 AGREEMENTS: 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority of the Board of Directors of the Corporation under Section 9 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

  
 1. Decrease in Authorized Shares. Section 2.1 of the
Plan is hereby amended to delete the reference to “four million (4,000,000)” and substitute in lieu thereof “seven hundred ninety eight thousand (798,000).” 
  
 2. Effective Date. This Amendment shall be effective as of the date hereof, the date of its adoption by the Board of
Directors of the Company. 







 3. Defined Terms: Effect Upon Plan. All initially capitalized terms used without definition herein
shall have the meanings set forth therefor in the Plan. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
 [signature page follows] 
  

 2 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed and delivered as of the date first above written.

  
 CLUBCORP, INC. 
  
 By: /s/ Thomas T. Henslee 
 Name: Thomas T. Henslee 
 Title: Secretary 
  

 3
~c~O STq1. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 4~. ~. ~ ~oi~ 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

# DEC 1.8 

# 2Ut4 David C. Bloomfield, Plant Manager Arizona Public Service Company Four Corners Electric Power Station P.O. Box 

### 355 Fruitland, NM 87416-0355 Re: Final Permit Decision for Four Corners Power Plant SCR Project, PSD Permit NN 

### 14-01 and Minor NSR Permit T-0002-NN Dear Mr. Bloomfield: In accordance with the Clean AirAct (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C 7401 et seq.), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 

### 9 (EPA) has reviewed yourapplication fora CAA Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) permit and Tribal MinorNew Source Review permit authorizingthe construction and operation ofSelective Catalytic Reductions systems on Units 4 and 

### 5 atthe Four Corners Power Plant. Enclosed please find your signed permit and our notice announcing EPA’s final permitdecision. Your permit becomes effective 30 days afterthe service ofnotice ofthis final permit decision, unless a petition for appeal is properly and timely filed with EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB). In the event a petition for review is filed, construction ofthe FCPP SCR Project cannot begin underthis permit until resolution ofthe EAB petition(s). The final permit, Response to Comments document and otherkey documents relevantto the final permit are also available through a link at ourwebsite, www.epa.gov/region09/air/permit/r9-permitsissued.html#psd, oratwww.regulations.gov (search: EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0545). Ifyou have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Lisa Beckham at415- 972-3811 or beckham.lisa@epa.gov. Sincerely,

~~ordan~ Director, Air Division
Enclosures
cc: Mark Hajduk, APS (via email) Stephen Etsitty, Navajo Nation EPA Eugenia Quintana, Navajo Nation EPA (via email)

Printed on Recycled Paper
#### §§ 20.1306-20.1399 [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.709 Issuance and revocation of license. Except as provided in § 431.714 of this subpart, the agency or board must— ( a ) Issue licenses to persons who meet the agency's or board's standards; and
( b ) Revoke or suspend a license if the agency or board determines that the person holding the license substantially fails to meet the standards.