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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2333 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2333

To amend title 10, United States Code, to expedite the prompt return of 
the remains of deceased members of the Armed Forces to their loved ones 
                              for burial.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 15, 2007

  Mr. Stupak introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to expedite the prompt return of 
the remains of deceased members of the Armed Forces to their loved ones 
                              for burial.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Sergeant First Class James Priestap 
and Private First Class Alan Blohm Fallen Servicemember Respectful 
Return Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) Members of the Armed Forces who die under the 
        circumstances described in section 1481 of title 10, United 
        States Code, have made the ultimate sacrifice for the United 
        States, and their remains should be treated with the utmost 
        reverence and respect.
            (2) The family and friends of a deceased member of the 
        Armed Forces should be able to greet the remains of their loved 
        one at an airport near the place designated for the disposition 
        of the remains and provide for the burial of their loved one 
        with proper honors and without undue delay or complication.
            (3) Rural areas are frequently served by smaller regional 
        airports and are often a significant distance from a major 
        airport, and the practice of the Department of Defense to 
        finish the aircraft portion of the transportation of the 
        remains of a deceased member of the Armed Forces at a major 
        airport imposes undue burdens on the family and friends of the 
        deceased member.

SEC. 3. TRANSPORTATION OF REMAINS OF DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
              FORCES AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS.

    Section 1482(a)(8) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``When transportation of 
the remains includes transportation by aircraft under section 562 of 
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364; 10 U.S.C. 1482 note), the Secretary concerned 
shall provide, to the maximum extent practicable, for delivery of the 
remains by air to the commercial, general aviation, or military airport 
nearest to the place selected by the designee.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### MERKLE & BRITTON V. HINSON LUMBER COMPANY.

(Decided Jan. 16, 1912.)

Appeal from Houston Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Pearce.

E. H. Hill, for appellant. B. F. Reid, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Affirmed for want of assignment of errors.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                                  NOVEMBER 2002
                                  JULY 16, 2003


         THIS AMENDMENT TO NOVEMBER 2000 AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is made in
Medina, Ohio and is entered effective as of July 16, 2003, by and between
Corrpro Companies, Inc., an Ohio corporation (the "Company"), Commonwealth
Seager Holdings Ltd, Corrtech Consulting Group, and Barry W. Schadeck
("Executive").

                                   WITNESSETH:
         Whereas, the Company, Commonwealth Seager Holdings Ltd, Corrtech
Consulting Group, and Executive are party to that Agreement dated as of November
2, 2000 (the "November 2000 Agreement") that was executed in connection with the
Consulting Agreement (as defined in the November 2000 Agreement);

         Whereas, the Company and Executive wish to amend the November 2000
Agreement to extend the stated term of the November 2000 Agreement in accordance
with this Amendment;

         In consideration of the recitals, the mutual covenants and agreements
contained in this Amendment, and other good and valuable consideration, the
parties agree as follows:

         Section 1 (a), "Term," of the November 2000 Agreement is hereby amended
to read:

         (a)      Term. Executive has been elected by Corrpro and agrees to
                  serve as Executive Vice President of Corrpro, subject to the
                  provisions of this Agreement, for the period effective
                  November 2, 2000 and ending on March 31, 2005. This Agreement
                  at all times may otherwise be terminated in accordance with
                  the provisions hereof.

Except as amended by this Amendment, all other terms and provisions of the
November 2000 Agreement, which the parties hereby ratify, shall remain in full
force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the
date and year first above written.

Corrpro Companies Inc.              Commonwealth Seager Holdings Ltd

By:                                 By:
    ------------------------            ---------------------------


Corrtech Consulting Group           Executive

By:
    -------------------------           ----------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SENTEX SENSING TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT, FILED ON FORM
10-QSB, FOR THE PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 29, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                           7,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  689,816
<ALLOWANCES>                                    27,247
<INVENTORY>                                    977,348
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,757,458
<PP&E>                                         337,393
<DEPRECIATION>                                 215,844
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,493,426
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,186,907
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,880,079
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,702,070)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,493,426
<SALES>                                        894,553
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               895,854
<CGS>                                          439,320
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  439,320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               626,247
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              84,178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (253,891)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (253,891)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (253,891)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
###### 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.

#### § 2.80 Publication for opposition.

If, on examination or reexamination of an application for registration on the Principal Register, it appears that the applicant is entitled to have his mark registered, the mark will be published in the *Official Gazette* for opposition. The mark will also be published in the case of an application to be placed in interference or concurrent use proceedings, if otherwise registrable.

[41 FR 758, Jan. 5, 1976]

###### 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.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Mini-compendio de cifras eneducaci�n
** 
1995 | 1996
 
SuDoc Number:ED 1.310/2: | ED 1.326:
Item Number:ED 1.326: | 0461-D-09 (online) | 0461-D-31(online)
CGP systemNumber:001048020
 
March 6, 2018****
#### ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION *v.*Jess BELT et ux

76-32

537 S.W. 2d 378

Opinion delivered June 14, 1976

*Thomas B. Keys*and *Robert E. Diles,*for appellant.

*Lonnie C. Turner*and *Warner & Smith,*for appellees.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

In this condemnation suit the highway department is taking 16.07 acres of Mr. and Mrs. Belt’s 78.7-acre tract. The jury fixed just compensation at $10,000. For reversal the condemnor argues that it should have been permitted to show, by cross-examining Mr. Belt, that five years after the taking the Belts sold eight of their remaining acres for $35,000. We agree with the condemnor.

On direct examination Belt testified to “before and *2after” values of $40,000 and $25,000, entitling the Belts to $15,000. On cross-examination counsel asked if Belt had not listed part of his remaining land for sale. Upon objection to that question the trial judge directed that the matter be heard in chambers. There, after some discussion, the judge announced that he would allow proof of a sale within a year or two after the taking, but a sale four or five years after the taking would be too remote.

We infer that neither attorney knew the details of the sale, which apparently was not a matter of record. Belt was brought into chambers and testified, upon further cross-examination, that about five years after the taking he had contracted to sell eight of the remaining acres for $35,000. The court adhered to its ruling that the sale was too remote.

The court was mistaken in excluding the transaction solely because it occurred five years after the taking. Many circumstances might be pertinent to the issue of remoteness. The appellees argue, for instance, that all property near the Arkansas River was shown to have been rising in value and that the condemnor failed to prove similarity between the 8-acre tract and the 16.07 acres being condemned. Such considerations, however, were open to further exploration with regard to their bearing upon the issue of remoteness. Inasmuch as the matter of the 8-acre sale arose somewhat abruptly upon cross-examination, the condemnor could not be expected to make a proffer of proof with respect to all related facts. See our discussion in Washington *Nat. Ins. Co.*v. *Meeks,*249 Ark. 73, 458 S.W. 2d 135 (1970).

There is also the pertinent issue of credibility. Belt had testified that he had sustained a loss of $15,000 as a result of the condemnation. He had valued the remaining 62.63 acres at $25,000 as of the date of the taking. Yet, before the trial, he had sold only 8 of those acres for $35,000. It may be, as counsel argue, that the enhancement in value was attributable to something other than the highway construction project for which the land was being taken. But there is no unfairness in requiring Belt to explain to the jury the apparent inconsistency in his positions as condemnee and as seller. Needless to say, the testing of credibility is one of the basic reasons for allowing counsel wide latitude in cross-*3examination. *Arkansas State Highway Commn.*v. *Dean,*247 Ark. 717, 447 S.W. 2d 334 (1969).

Reversed.
#### § 63a.2 Definitions.

As used in this part:

*Act* means the Public Health Service Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 201 *et seq.*).

*HHS* means the Department of Health and Human Services.

*NIH* means the National Institutes of Health and its organizational components that award training grants.

*Nonprofit* as applied to any agency or institution, means an agency or institution which is a corporation or association, no part of the net earnings of which inures or may lawfully inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

*Program director* means the single individual named by the grantee in the grant application and approved by the Secretary, who is responsible for the management and conduct of the training program.

*Project period* See § 63a.8(a).

*Secretary* means the Secretary of Health and Human Services and any other official of HHS to whom the authority involved is delegated.

*Stipend* means a payment to an individual to help meet that individual's subsistence expenses during the training period.

*Training grant* means an award of funds to an eligible agency or institution for a training program authorized under § 63a.1 to carry out one or more of the purposes set forth in § 63a.3.
41631.

#### NORTH GEORGIA INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. v. FIRST OF GEORGIA INSURANCE COMPANY.

Frankum, Judge.

Where an insurance company and its agent enter into a written contract which, as amended, authorizes the agent on behalf of the company to receive and accept proposals for certain lines of insurance; to charge the premiums for such proposals as set forth in the manual of rates approved by the Insurance Commissioner and to remit the same to the company, retaining 15% “as advanced commissions”; and where the contract provides that at the end of each calendar quarter during the pendency thereof, the company shall render to the agent an accounting of the premiums collected; that the commissions due the agent are to be computed on the basis of 85% of the cumulative pro rata earned premiums plus salvage and subrogation, less total losses and loss experience; that if such figure is a plus figure, the company will pay the agent the amount of the remainder forthwith as the agent’s commission, but if such figure is a minus figure, such minus figure will be carried over to subsequent accountings; and where the contract further pro*76vides that “the agent shall not be obligated to repay any commissions received except in the case of an error in calculations or in cases where the reserve for outstanding losses has been improperly reported at the time of the accounting,” a petition seeking to recover from the agent a sum of money alleged to have been advanced in anticipation of earned commissions and alleging merely that such sum is due the company by reason of the fact that the total loss experience on the business written by the agent exceeded 85% of the cumulative pro rata earned premiums plus salvage and subrogation, but which fails to allege anywhere therein that the sum sought to be recovered was advanced to the defendant because of errors in calculations or because the reserve for outstanding losses had been improperly reported at the time of the -accounting, is insufficient to state a cause of action against the defendant. The petition in this case being deficient in the particulars above indicated, the trial court erred in overruling the general demurrer of the defendant thereto. *Hulsey v. Interstate Life &c. Ins. Co.,*207 Ga. 167 (2) (60 SE2d 353).

Argued November 4, 1965

Decided January 21, 1966

Rehearing denied February 8, 1966.

*Thurmond, Hester, Jolles & McElmurray, Thomas R. Burnside, Jr., Jerry Brooks Dye,*for appellant.

*Cumming, Nixon, Eve, Waller & Capers, Samuel C. Waller,*for appellee.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.*
###### 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.

#### § 1.178 Original patent; continuing duty of applicant.

(a) The application for reissue of a patent shall constitute an offer to surrender that patent, and the surrender shall take effect upon reissue of the patent. Until a reissue application is granted, the original patent shall remain in effect.

(b) In any reissue application before the Office, the applicant must call to the attention of the Office any prior or concurrent proceedings in which the patent (for which reissue is requested) is or was involved, such as interferences or trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, reissues, reexaminations, or litigations and the results of such proceedings (see also § 1.173(a)(1)).

[65 FR 54676, Sept. 8, 2000, as amended at 69 FR 56544, Sept. 21, 2004; 77 FR 46625, Aug. 6, 2012]

###### 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.
#### § 354.3 Register of Copyrights' authority to redesignate referrals.

If, during the 14-day period of a discretionary referral of a material question of law under § 354.1, the Register of Copyrights determines that the question is a “novel” one within the meaning of § 354.2(a), the Register may notify the Copyright Royalty Judges of that determination. The Copyright Royalty Judges will be bound by such a determination by the Register of Copyrights and will regard the Register's decision as timely delivered if it is received within the 30-day period applicable to novel question referrals.

[70 FR 30905, May 31, 2005, as amended at 71 FR 53331, Sept. 11, 2006]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 March 29, 2016

d0321

Order 

Clerk

March 29, 2016

151066(62)(63)(64)(65)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151066

COA: 317174

Oakland CC: 2013-244609-FH

MICHAEL JEROME CARROLL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to add issue is GRANTED. The motion for 

reconsideration of this Court’s September 29, 2015 order is considered, and it is 

DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously. The motion 

for oral argument and the motion to remand are DENIED.
#### McINTYRE V. THE STATE.

(Decided April 4, 1912.)

Appeal from Mobile City Court.

Heard before Hon. O. J. Semmes.

No counsel marked for appellant. R. O. Briokell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed. See also 1 Ala. App. 200; 55 South. 639.
#### § 20.605 Rule 605. Procurement of additional evidence following a hearing in a legacy appeal.

If it appears during the course of a hearing that additional evidence would assist in the review of the questions at issue, the presiding Member may direct that the record be left open so that the appellant and his or her representative may obtain the desired evidence. The presiding Member will determine the period of time during which the record will stay open, considering the amount of time estimated by the appellant or representative as needed to obtain the evidence and other factors adduced during the hearing. Ordinarily, the period will not exceed 60 days, and will be as short as possible in order that appellate consideration of the case not be unnecessarily delayed.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7102; 38 U.S.C. 7105, 7101 (2016))

[57 FR 4109, Feb. 3, 1992. Redesignated and amended at 84 FR 187, Jan. 18, 2019]
#### WILLIAM W. SLAYMAKER v. THE UNITED STATES

[57 C. Cls. 294; 263 U. S. 94]

Judgment was rendered against the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:

The provision of the act of August 29, 1916, that when any member of the Naval Reserve Force severs his connection with “ the service,” without compulsion on the part of the Government, before the expiration of his term of enrollment, the amount credited to him as a “gratuity” for the purchase of a uniform shall be deducted from any money that may be, or may become, due him, was not intended to apply where an officer of that force left it through being commissioned as an officer of the Regular Navy.

Mr. Justice McKeNNa

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court November 12, 1923.