alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MAINE	SUPREME	JUDICIAL	COURT Reporter	of	Decisions Decision: 20 20 ME 13 Docket: Ken

- 19

- 355 Submitted

O n B riefs : Jan uary 23,	2020 Decided: January	30,	2020
Panel: ALEXANDER , MEAD, GORMAN ,	JABAR , and HUMPHREY, JJ.

ADULT	GUARDIANSHIP	OF	L.

JABAR ,	J. [¶1] L.	 appeals	 from	 an	 order	 of	 the	 Kennebec	 County	 Probate	 Court ( Mitchell,	 J. ) determ i ni ng	 that	 L. “failed	 to	 prove	 by	 clear	 and	 convincing
evidence	that	his [adult] guardianship	is	no	longer	necessary	for	his	safety	and
well

- being” and denying	 his	 petition	 for	 termination	 of that guardianship

. L. contends,	and	the	Department	of	Health	and	Human	Services	concedes,	that
the	 court applied	 an	 incorrect	 standard	 of	 proof in	 contravention	 of
18

- A M.R.S.	§	5

- 307(d)	(2018). 1 [¶ 2 ] “What	party	has	the	burden	of	proof	.	.	.	is	a	legal	question

. L egal questions	 are	 subject	 to	 de	 novo	 review.” Steelstone	 Indus.,	 Inc.	 v.	 McCrum , 2001	ME	171,	¶ 6,	785	A.2d	1256 .		Thus,	the c ourt’s	application	of	the	law	to
the	facts	is	reviewed	de	novo. Estate	of	Greenblatt ,	2014	ME	32,	¶ 12,	86	A.3d

1 The	citations	here	are	to Title	18

- A , the	Probate	Code	in	effect	at	the	time of	the	court’s	order. The	Code	has	been repealed	and replaced	with	a	new	Probate	Code , codified	in	Title	18

- C,	which became effective on September	1,	2019. See P.L.	2019,	ch.	417;	P.L.	2017,	ch.	402.2
1215

. Section 5

- 307(d)	 sets	 forth	 the	 burden	 of	 proof	 applicable	 to	 this petition	for	termination	of	guardianship and provides:
In	 an	 action	 b y	 the	ward,	 upon	 presentation	 by	 the	 petitioner	 of evidence	 establishing	 a	 prima	 facie	 case that	 the	 ward	 is	 not incapacitated	 or	 the	 appointment	 is	 no	 longer	 necessary	 or desirable	as	a	means	of	providing	continuing	care	and	supervision of	 the	 ward,	 the	 c ourt	 shall	 order	 the	 termination	 unless	 the respondent	proves	by	clear	and	convincing	evidence that	 the	ward is	 incapacitated	 and	 guardianship	 is	 necessary	 or	 desirable	 as	 a means	of	providing	continuing	care	and	supervision	of	the	ward.
18

- A	M.R.S.	§	5

- 3 07(d)	(emphasis	added). [¶ 3 ] In	 stating that “[t]he	 Petitioner	 failed	 to	 prove	 by	 clear	 and convincing	evidence	that	his	guardianship	is	no	longer	necessary	for	his	safety
and	well

- being [,] ” the	 court failed	 to	 apply	 the	 proper statutory standard	 of proof

. W e therefore vacate	the	judgment	and	remand	to	the	probate	court for application	 of the	 correct	 standard	 of	 proof

. See Emerson	 v.	 Cty.	 Concrete
& Const.	Co., 614	A.2d	549,	550	(Me.	1992)

. The	entry	is: Judgment vacated

. Remanded	 for proceedings consistent	with	this	opinion.3
Robert	Marks,	Esq.,	Washington,	for	appellant	L. Aaron	 Frey,	Attorney	General , and	Cody	M.P.	Hopkins,	Asst.	Atty.	Gen.,	Office of	 the	 Attorney	 General,	 Augusta,	 for	 appellee	 Department	 of	 Health	 and Human	Services

Kennebec	County	Probate	Court	docket	number	2008

- 0172

- 1 F OR C LERK R E FERENCE O NLY
825 L o tusAvenue Louis ville, KY 40213 

# & • March 11, 2016 Federal Aviation Administration Orville Wright Building (FOB-10A) 800 Independence Ave. SW Washington , DC 20591 Subject: Time-limited Exemption from Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 91, §91 .227(c)(1 )(i) and (iii)-Automatjc Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out Equipment Performance Requirements . Reference : Grant of Exemption No. 12555, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0971 . Ladies 

### I Gentlemen : Grant of Exemption 12555 provides for a time-limited grant of exemption from the ADS-B Navigation Accuracy Category for Position (NACp) and Navigation Integrity Category (NIC) requirements of §91.227(c)(1 )(i) and (iii) from January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2024. United Parcel Service Co. of 1400 N. Hurstbourne Parkway, Louisville KY 40223 herby notifies the FAA that we intend to comply with the conditions and limitations expressed in the exemption cited above.

# Sin**~4'~** Christopher A. Williams Director of Operations Copies : AFS-1 (mailto : 9-AWA-Equip .2020@faa .gov) Larry 

### A. Ortkiese , UPS POl - CE25
#### Isaac Tencorn et al., Respondents, *v.*Aaron Goldman et al., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, horough of Manhattan.

J. A. Seidman, for appellants.

H. Levor, for respondents.

*Per Guriam.*

The plaintiffs having failed to make any proof of delivery of the goods, the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment which has been rendered in their favor.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerioh and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.
#### DUESENBERG MOTORS CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES.

[56 C. Cls. 96; 260 U.S. 115.]

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

A contractor who incurred expense under a contract to manufacture articles for the Government for use in the late war, but whose opportunity to perform and earn the contemplated profits was cut short by the sudden cessation of hostilities, the declaration of the armistice, and the consequent termination of the contract in accordance with its terms, took the chances of this contingency and can not recover damages.

*Held,*in this case, that delay of the Government in furnishing necessary specifications as contemplated by a contract for the manufacture of airplane motors of a foreign model, due to an honest but mistaken belief, shared by the contractor, that the model was perfected and adequate specifications in existence, was not an actionable breach of representation, in view of the conduct and dealings of the parties for the expedition of the work, the absence of any protest over the delay and the absence of averment that it prevented the contractor from being fully occupied with preparatory and other work under the contract.

Time was of the essence for the Government, but not for the contractor.

Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, November 13,1922.
# C_2016098EN.01003002.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2016 — Benelli Q.J. v OHIM — Demharter (MOTOBI B PESARO)

(Case T-171/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community figurative mark MOTOBI B PESARO - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Evidence submitted against the application for revocation after the expiry of the period set for that purpose - Failure to take account thereof - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Provision to the contrary - Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rule 50(1), third subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2016/C 098/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Benelli Q.J. Srl (Pesaro, Italy) (represented by: P. Lukácsi and B. Bozóki, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially F. Mattina and subsequently P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Demharter GmbH (Dillingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Kohn, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2013 (Case R 2590/2011-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Demharter GmbH and Benelli Q.J. Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Benelli Q.J. Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Benelli Q.J. Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

1

---
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6269

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, a/k/a Jeffrey A. Pleasants , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:00

- cr - 00071

- REP

- RCY

- 1; 3:17

- cv - 00451

- REP )

Submitted : May 23, 2019 Decided: May 29, 2019

Before KING and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability wi ll not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
fin d that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322,
336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, t he prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at
484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclud e that Pleasant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny Pleasant’s motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 186 (Monday, September 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 49383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23337]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Mental Health;

    Notice of Closed Meeting
    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel. K99.
    Date: October 29, 2009.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852. (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Megan Libbey, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, 
NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6148, MSC 9609, 
Rockville, MD 20852-9609. 301-402-6807. [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 21, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-23337 Filed 9-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
§ 21.7074 Entitlement to supplemental educational assistance. In determining the entitlement of a veteran or servicemember who is eligible for supplemental educational assistance VA shall— ( a ) Calculate the veteran's or servicemember's entitlement to basic educational assistance on the day he or she establishes eligibility for supplemental educational assistance, and
( b ) Credit the veteran or servicemember with the same number of months and days entitlement to supplemental educational assistance as the number calculated in paragraph (a) of this section.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3023; Pub. L. 98-525)
§ 4.78 Muscle function. ( a ) *Examination of muscle function.* The examiner must use a Goldmann perimeter chart or the Tangent Screen method that identifies the four major quadrants (upward, downward, left, and right lateral) and the central field (20 degrees or less) (see Figure 2). The examiner must document the results of muscle function testing by identifying the quadrant(s) and range(s) of degrees in which diplopia exists.
( b ) *Evaluation of muscle function.* ( 1 ) An evaluation for diplopia will be assigned to only one eye. When a claimant has both diplopia and decreased visual acuity or visual field defect, assign a level of corrected visual acuity for the poorer eye (or the affected eye, if disability of only one eye is service-connected) that is: one step poorer than it would otherwise warrant if the evaluation for diplopia under diagnostic code 6090 is 20/70 or 20/100; two steps poorer if the evaluation under diagnostic code 6090 is 20/200 or 15/200; or three steps poorer if the evaluation under diagnostic code 6090 is 5/200. This adjusted level of corrected visual acuity, however, must not exceed a level of 5/200. Use the adjusted visual acuity for the poorer eye (or the affected eye, if disability of only one eye is service-connected), and the corrected visual acuity for the better eye (or visual acuity of 20/40 for the other eye, if only one eye is service-connected) to determine the percentage evaluation for visual impairment under diagnostic codes 6065 through 6066.
( 2 ) When diplopia extends beyond more than one quadrant or range of degrees, evaluate diplopia based on the quadrant and degree range that provides the highest evaluation.
( 3 ) When diplopia exists in two separate areas of the same eye, increase the equivalent visual acuity under diagnostic code 6090 to the next poorer level of visual acuity, not to exceed 5/200.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)
[73 FR 66550, Nov. 10, 2008, as amended at 83 FR 15321, Apr. 10, 2018]
#### § 53.41 Notification of funding decision.

If the Director, Geriatrics and Extended Care Operation, determines that a submission from a State fails to meet the requirements of this part for funding, the Director shall provide written notice of the decision and the reasons for the decision.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1744)

[73 FR 73560, Dec. 3, 2008, as amended at 77 FR 73313, Dec. 10, 2012]
Exhibit 32



                           COGENCO INTERNATIONAL, INC.

                   Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350
                           Principal Executive Officer

     To my knowledge: the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
June 30, 2007, containing financial statements for the period then ended, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934;
and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cogenco
International, Inc. for the periods presented.


August 9, 2007


/s/ David W. Brenman
--------------------
David W. Brenman, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Oct 19 2010 

Mr. Steven Thomas 

1828 Hopkins Road 

Murray, KY 42071 

Dear Mr. Thomas: 

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

explains why we cannot process your request and tells you what you should do in the next 30 

days. 

Why We Cannot Process Your Request 

We entered your September 23, 2010, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA2010-0996), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent 

does not comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 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. 

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. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to 

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

exemption. 
2 

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, 

/s/ 

Ida M. Klepper 

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
90HN x., EmEl. AUSTIN.TEXAR 78711 

January 2, 1976 

p. 3200 
IheHonorebleBobBullock - page 2 (H-757) 

pmvided,kwever,thatallmxhbquestsand 

gifts of mxeys, except those to the hpartmnt 

of&ntalnealthendMsntal~tionarld 

institutionsunderitajurb3dicticmreceived 

franprivate scurces, a&toagenciesand 

instituticnsnamdinArticleIVofthisAct, 

shallbs~itedinibJthestateTmasuryand 

&allbeexpendedinaccon%um with * prQv.isims 

f5his Act. Acts 1975, 64th leg., ch. 743, at 

. 

Ithaebsen~~thatsalary~l~~rradewithgift~ 

aremtaNemdbyseckbll(q)sincethcsefLmdsareaFpmpriatedby 

sectFon190farticleVofthsAdandthuearenotn~than~iated fuds." 

. . ~thezquimmntsofastatutetkintentofthe 

rJ@szture rmst bs tb 

Y~E%$ZkiEZFi9%- 

s.w.zd 112 (!lkx. Sup. 1971). VihereTGC 

bytkeechazgedwithitsafhinistration 

dhaskeen- by tb Legisleture without change it is pesuned 

thatttnzfsgislaturewasawsreofanda&p+xdthatconsixucti~. Humble 

8. v. Calve&, 414 S.W.Zd 172 (Tex. Sup. 1967); SB 

i?+3ie-- s.w.2azTwK. sup. 1944); Railxoad cuanission v. -- Texas 

&taworleansR. co., 42 S.W.2d 1091 (Tex. civ. - Austin 1931, 

ii%E-ZTNti identical to article V, section.9 l(q) and 18 of 

~the currentAppropriatimsIkctamalso famdinthe 1973 General Appmpriations Act, Acts 1973, 63rd Ieg ., .A 659, p. 1786 [secticn l(q) at 

2195; secticn 18 at 22091. A search of the salary supplaaent files 

intboffice of the hcmtaryof State remals thatstate agencies have 

constrmd this lsnguAga; to rowire ?xporeg of gift funds. Ilhed, to 

amstrm the provish aa not applybg to gift fur& wxld give 8ectim 

l(q) little, if any,meaning. since thsLe&slature ispresmsdtohave 

usedevexywxdandsectionforapurpoee,'wecannotadcptacmstzuction 

thetwmldmake this seckionnwningless. Perkins v. State, 367 S.W.2d 

140 (lbx. Sup. 196311 Mdins-walcbr Bum-m- 296 S.W.2d 

93 (lkx. sup. 1957). lbcarcllng1y itieourxziziIegislatLue 

used tb? term %Qzpm@ated" in diffemrlt calte?cts in eections l(q) and 19, 

~clearlyintepldedthat~eupplanente~fmngiftfundebe 

reprtedtothe se4uwaq of state. 

p. 3201 
Ihemle BobBullock- page 3 (H-757) 

SUMMARY 

-w~~eJPeIedtopay~salar~ 

of State enplayees andofficers until* 

-ofanyeabryfq@ms?n% including 

srplglenents made with gift fur&, is reported 

tothe secremyof state. 

Attorney wel of !&arm 

pa 3202
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – May 7, 2024

# 									Public Schedule – May 7, 2024							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

May 6, 2024

*****THE DAILY PUBLIC SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*********

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN******

Secretary Blinken is on travel to California and Guatemala from May 6-7, 2024.**9:00 a.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken meets with Guatemalan President Bernardo Arévalo in Guatemala City, Guatemala.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

******9:45 a.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken participates in the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection Ministerial Family Photo in Guatemala City, Guatemala.**(POOLED PRESS COVERAGE)**

******10:00 a.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken attends the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection Ministerial Meeting in Guatemala City, Guatemala.

**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)******

**DEPUTY SECRETARY KURT M. CAMPBELL**

Deputy Secretary Campbell attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES RICHARD R. VERMA**

Deputy Secretary Verma is on travel to the People’s Republic of China and the Philippines from May 6-10, 2024.

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH, ENERGY, AND THE ENVIRONMENT JOSE W. FERNANDEZ******

Under Secretary Fernandez is on travel to Lithuania from May 6-7, 2024.****

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY ELIZABETH M. ALLEN**

Under Secretary Allen is on travel to California from May 6-7, 2024.****

**ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS JOHN BASS**

Acting Under Secretary Bass attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS DANIEL J. KRITENBRINK******

Assistant Secretary Kritenbrink is on travel to Hawaii and Australia from May 2-8, 2024.****

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONFLICT STABILIZATION OPERATIONS ANNE WITKOWSKY**

Assistant Secretary Witkowsky is on travel to Papua New Guinea and Australia from April 26-May 10, 2024.****

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TODD D. ROBINSON******

Assistant Secretary Robinson is****on travel to Saint Lucia, Barbados, and Trinidad and Tobago from May 6-10, 2024.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POPULATION, REFUGEES, AND MIGRATION JULIETA VALLS NOYES**

Assistant Secretary Noyes joins Secretary Blinken on travel to Guatemala from May 6-7, 2024.

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE**

**1:00 p.m.**Department Press Briefing with Spokesperson Matthew Miller.(**OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)***The Department Press Briefing will be streamed live on the****Department homepage****and****YouTube Channel***.

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonOfficial Domestic TravelThe Secretary of State

Back to Top