alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Matter of the Estate of Joseph Richardson, Deceased.

(Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

June, 1900.)

Surrogate’s Court — Proceedings to recover property withheld from executor — Code C. P., § 8707 — Decree cannot determine title.

A corporation, which has been the banker of a decedent, and from time to time has had the custody of assets which he deposited with it as security for loans, may be required, under section 2707 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to disclose to the executor what those assets were, although it has parted with the possession of them.

The decree in such a proceeding may determine possession, but cannot determine title.

*667Motion to vacate an order granted under section 2707 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

FTicoll, Anable *&*Lindsay, for petitioner.

Miller, Peckham & Dixon, for respondent.

Thomas, S.

Section 2707, Code of Civil Procedure, as enacted in 1880 and amended in 1893, and as it now stands, authorizes an examination of a person who has knowledge or information concerning money or other personal property, which should be delivered to an executor or administrator, or included in an inventory or appraisal, and who refuses to impart such knowledge or information, or to disclose any other fact which will aid such ex-ecutor or administrator in making discovery of such property, so that it cannot he inventoried or appraised. The remedy is not confined to a proceeding against a person shown to he in possession of the property. Indeed, as pointed out hy the commissioners to revise the Code, in their note to section 2712, no decree can be made by the surrogate which shall pass upon a question of title, and the only decree possible is confined to a determination of the question of possession. The remedy is a useful one, and the Legislature clearly intended to confer the power upon this court to administer it. That it is in the nature of an investigation which cannot end in a decree requiring the person proceeded against to do or to refrain from doing any act beyond testifying, is not an objection available to the person required to- testify. The chapter of the Code in which the section is placed requires an executor or administrator to procure an appraisal and inventory, and the examination is to be had so as to make such appraisal and inventory possible, The corporation now sought to be examined was the banker of the decedent, and from time to time had custody of assets deposited by the decedent with it as security for loans. It is now asked merely to inform the executor of the will of its customer as to what those assets were. The motion to vacate the order is denied and the examination will be required to proceed.

Motion denied.
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before 

any court except for the purpose of 

establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

JOHN T. WILSON GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

KARL M. SCHARNBERG

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

SHAUN COX, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 48A05-1312-CR-588

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MADISON CIRCUIT COURT

The Honorable Thomas Newman, Jr., Judge

Cause No. 48C03-1301-FA-147

September 5, 2014

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MAY, Judge
2

Shaun Cox appeals his sentence of forty years for five counts of Class A felony child 

molesting.1 We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 22, 2013, the State charged Cox with five counts of Class A felony child 

molesting. On October 14, Cox pled guilty to all five counts. Cox’s plea agreement provided 

he “waives the right to appeal any sentence imposed by the court, including the right to seek 

appellate review of the sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), so long as the court 

sentences the defendant within the terms of this plea agreement.” (App. at 16.) Cox’s plea 

agreement indicated his “sentence shall be open to the Court with all counts to run 

concurrently.” (Id. at 15.) On November 4, the trial court sentenced Cox to forty years for 

each count of Class A felony child molesting, to run concurrently, for an aggregate sentence 

of forty years.

DISCUSSION AND DECSION

“[A] defendant may waive the right to appellate review of his sentence as part of a 

written plea agreement.” Creech v. State, 887 N.E.2d 73, 75 (Ind. 2008).2 Cox pled guilty 

to five counts of Class A felony child molesting and, as part of his plea agreement, agreed to 

waive his right to appeal his sentence as long as the trial court sentenced him according to the 

terms of the plea agreement. The plea agreement indicated sentencing was at the discretion 

of the court, and all counts must run concurrently. 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b) (2012).

2 However, a defendant “who can establish in a post-conviction proceeding that his plea was coerced or 

unintelligent is entitled to have his conviction set aside.” Creech, 887 N.E.2d at 75. 
3

The trial court sentenced Cox to forty years for each count of Class A felony child 

molesting, and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. When Cox was sentenced in 

2013, the sentencing range for a Class A felony was between twenty and fifty years, with an 

advisory sentence of thirty years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4(a). As Cox’s sentence was within 

the range for a Class A felony, and the sentences ran concurrently as provided in his plea 

agreement, he may not challenge his sentence on direct appeal. See Creech, 887 N.E.2d at 75 

(defendant may waive the right to appeal his sentence as part of his plea agreement). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

KIRSCH, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.
§ 21.6282 Effective dates of induction into and termination of vocational training. ( a ) *Induction.* Subject to the limitations set forth in § 21.6042 of this part, the date a veteran is inducted into vocational training shall be the earlier of: ( 1 ) The date of the facility requires the veteran to report for prescribed activities; or
( 2 ) The date the program begins at the facility providing services. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(b)(2))
( b ) *Termination.* A veteran's training program shall be terminated under the provisions of § 21.6180. of this part.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(b)(2))
State Facility Name Facility ID (ORISPL) Year Program(s) Selected SO2 (tons)

NH Merrimack 2364 2012 ARP 1,004.2

NH Merrimack 2364 2013 ARP 1,400.5

NH Merrimack 2364 2014 ARP 1,044.0

Data source: EPA's Air Market's Program website at:

http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/
§ 21.8030 Requirement for evaluation of child. ( a ) *Children to be evaluated.* The VR&E Division will evaluate each child who: ( 1 ) Applies for a vocational training program; and
( 2 ) Has been determined to be an eligible child as defined in § 21.8010. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1804(a), 1814)
( b ) *Purpose of evaluation.* The evaluation has two purposes: ( 1 ) To ascertain whether achievement of a vocational goal by the child is reasonably feasible; and
( 2 ) If a vocational goal is reasonably feasible, to develop an individualized plan of integrated training, services, and assistance that the child needs to prepare for and participate in vocational training or employment.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1804, 1814)
#### CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES

March 2, 1925.

[57 C. Cls. 569; 267 U. S. 403]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, the Supreme Court deciding:

A railroad company which made out and presented freight bills to the Government for net transportation charges after making land-grant deductions, and accepted without protest payment of the amount so claimed; *held*not entitled to recover upon the ground that the Government should not have been allowed the deductions.

Mr. Justice ButleR

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court
July 1, 2015

Mr. Charles Roark

Star News Corporation

909 Commonwealth Boulevard

Martinsville, VA 24112

Dear Mr. Roark:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request, posted to the public docket on April 28, 2015, on behalf 

of Star News Corporation into the public docket (No. FAA−2015−1254), but we are unable to 

process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2216 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2216

 To amend the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include crimes against the 
                               homeless.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2007

Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas (for herself, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, 
Mr. Wexler, Mr. Kucinich, and Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include crimes against the 
                               homeless.

    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 ``Hate Crimes Against the Homeless 
Statistics Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF HOMELESS.

    Section (1)(b) of the Hate Crime Statistics Act is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``homeless status,'' 
        after ``sexual orientation,''; and
            (2) by adding the the end the following:
            ``(6) As used in this subsection, the term `homeless 
        status' with respect to an individual, refers to an individual 
        who--
                    ``(A) lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate 
                nighttime residence; or
                    ``(B) has a primary nighttime residence that is--
                            ``(i) a public or private place not 
                        designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular 
                        sleeping accommodation for human beings, 
                        including cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned 
                        buildings, substandard housing, bus or train 
                        stations, or similar settings;
                            ``(ii) a supervised publicly or privately 
                        operated shelter designed to provide temporary 
                        living accommodations, including motels, 
                        hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional 
                        housing; or
                            ``(iii) housing of other persons in which 
                        the individual is temporarily staying due to 
                        loss of housing, economic hardship, or a 
                        similar reason.''.
                                 <all>
```
### .SERVED: MAY 29, 2012

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC DOCKETNo. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS No. FAA-2011-1295
ORDER OF DISMISSAL 8')• ...) Q '"": t. \..1

On January 3, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "Complainant") filed a Complaint. Ori December 22, 2011, Martinaire

### rAviation, LLC (hereinafter "Respondent") had requested a hearing. On May 25, 2012, Respondent filed a Withdrawal ofRequest for Hearing, citing settlement ofthe matter. 14 C.P.R.§ 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney may withdraw a complaint orparty maywithdraw a request for a hearing without the consent ofthe administrative lawjudge. Ifan agency attorney withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative lawjudge shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpart with prejudice." WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal ofRequest for Hearing having been read and considered, it is ORDERED that:2
1. Respondent's Withdrawal ofRequest for Hearing ishereby GRANTED; and 2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.

Attachments

- Service List

# ~'cLJC~~ Richard C. Goodwin Administrative Law JudgeSERVICE JLIS'Jf' ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1 ONE COPY 

### Michael L. Dworkin, 

### Respondent's Counsel Michael L. Dworkin and Associates 405 California Street, Suite 210 San Francisco, CA 94104 TEL: 415-421-2500 FAX: 415-421-2560 Kate Barber, 

### Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel GreatLakes Region, AGL-7B Federal Aviation Administration 2300 EastDevon Avenue Des Plaines, IL 60018 TEL: 847-294-7862 FAX: 847-294-7498 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,

### AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 /' · U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey**Av~nue,** 

### S.E. Washlngtcm, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 Legal Assistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2011-1295 (Civil Penalty 

### Action)

....**~.**
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF HADCO CORPORATION


DIRECT SUBSIDIARIES (100%) OWNED BY HADCO CORPORATION)     STATE OR COUNTRY/
                                                       TERRITORY OF ORGANIZATION
                                                     
Hadco Santa Clara, Inc. (f/k/a Zycon Corporation)              Delaware
Hadco Phoenix, Inc. (f/k/a Continental Circuits Corp.)         Delaware
Zycon Corporation (a name holding corporation)                 Delaware
Continental Circuits Corp. (a name holding corporation)        Delaware
Hadco Foreign Sales Corporation                           U.S. Virgin Islands
Hadco Ireland Limited                                           Ireland
Hadco Scotland Limited                                         Scotland


INDIRECT SUBSIDIARIES                                      STATE OR COUNTRY/
                                                       TERRITORY OF ORGANIZATION
                                                       
CCIR of California Corp. (100% owned by Hadco Phoenix,        California
      Inc.)                                                       
CCIR of Texas Corp. (100% owned by Hadco                        Texas
      Phoenix, Inc.)
Hadco Corporation (Malaysia) SDN.BHD. (f/k/a Zycon             Malaysia   
      Corporation, SDN.BHD) (100% owned by Hadco Santa                    
      Clara, Inc.
Continental Circuits International, Inc. (100% owned by        Barbados
      Hadco Phoenix, Inc.                                            
      



                                       21
§ 39.33 Conferences. ( a ) *Predesign conference.* A predesign conference is required for all Establishment, Expansion, and Improvement Projects requiring major construction, primarily to ensure that the State or Tribal Organization becomes oriented to VA procedures, requirements, and any technical comments pertaining to the project. This conference will take place at an appropriate location near the proposed site and should include a site visit to ensure that all parties to the process, including NCA staff, are familiar with the site and its characteristics.
( b ) *Additional conferences.* At any time, VA may recommend an additional conference (such as a design development conference) be held in VA Central Office in Washington, DC, to provide an opportunity for the State or Tribal Organization and its architects to discuss with VA officials the requirements for a grant.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2408)
[77 FR 4476, Jan. 30, 2012]
----

Removal from the register of Case C-160/05 (1)

(2005/C 330/37)

Language of the case: French

By order of 4 October 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-160/05: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

----

(1)OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.

----
# Official Journal C 165/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.165.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 165 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5324 June 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.165.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 165

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5324 June 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | RESOLUTIONS |
| | Council |
| 2010/C 165/01 | Council Resolution of 3 June 2010 concerning an updated handbook with recommendations for international police cooperation and measures to prevent and control violence and disturbances in connection with football matches with an international dimension, in which at least one Member State is involved | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RESOLUTIONS

Council

2010/C 165/01

Council Resolution of 3 June 2010 concerning an updated handbook with recommendations for international police cooperation and measures to prevent and control violence and disturbances in connection with football matches with an international dimension, in which at least one Member State is involved

1

---

| | III   Preparatory acts |
| --- | --- |
| | MEMBER STATES' INITIATIVES |
| 2010/C 165/02 | Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Slovenia and the Kingdom of Sweden for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters | 22 |

III   Preparatory acts

MEMBER STATES' INITIATIVES

2010/C 165/02

Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Slovenia and the Kingdom of Sweden for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters

22

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Sr UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX PROT 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

## SEP 30 2014 The Honorable Elaine Fink. Chairperson North Fork Rancheria ofMono Indians ofCalifornia P.O Box 929 North Fork, California 93643 Dear Chairperson Fink: Pursuantto Executive Order 13 175 and the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, I would like to invite the North Fork Rancheria ofMono Indians ofCaliforniato engage in government-to-government consultation on action EPA is considering to reclassify the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area from Moderate nonattainmentto Serious nonattainment fortwo National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM 2

. 5 ). The San Joaquin Valley is currently classified Moderate nonattainment fortwo PM 2

. 5 NAAQS established in 1997 and 2006. EPA is evaluating air quality and modeling analyses regarding the ability ofthe San Joaquin Valley to attain the 1997 and the 2006 PM2.s NAAQS 

### by the applicable attainment dates for each standard. Consistent with these evaluations, EPA is also considering action to reclassify the San Joaquin Valley as Serious nonattainment forthe 1997 and 2006 PM2S NAAQS. These reclassification actions would establish new attainment dates and outline new airquality planning requirements. These reclassifications would also lowerthe applicable “major source” thresholds forthe purposes ofthe nonattainment new source review program aridthe Title V operating permit program from its current level of 100 tons peryear (tpy) to 70 tpy, potentially subjecting more stationary sources to these requirements. The reclassifications niav also lowerthe de minimis threshold forthe Clean Air Act’s General Conformity requirement from 100 tpy to 70 tpy. Underthe General Conformity requirement, Federal agencies bearthe responsibility ofdetermining conformity ofactions in nonattainment and maintenance areas that require Federal permits, approvals, or funding. To ensure thatthe interests and concerns ofthe North Fork Rancheria ofMono Indians ofCalifornia are considered, I would like to invite you oryour designated consultation representative to engage in government-to-governmentconsultation with EPA. To request further information, orto initiate consultation, please have your staffcontact Mr. Kerry Drake, Associate Director, Air Division, at (415) 947-4157 orby electronic mail at drake.kerryepa.gov. Ifyou desire government-to-government consultation with EPA, we respectfully requestthat you notify us by October 27, 2014. Thankyou and I look forward to receiving your input. Sincerely,

DeborahJorda Director, Air Division

cc: Christina McDonald, Environmental Administrative Assistant

P,znted eu RecV( led Paper
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 Alpharma Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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.



Dated:   May 5, 2005

/s/ Ingrid Wiik
Ingrid Wiik
President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  May 5, 2005

/s/ Matthew Farrell
Matthew Farrell 
Chief Financial Officer