alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Carroll Estate

*Stanley B. Cooper,*for accountant.

September 26, 1956.

Taxis, P. J.,

... In his will testator provided, inter alia, as follows:

> “SIXTH: I give and bequeath unto my sister Margaret T. Carroll, the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) to be used only toward the purchase of a home for my sister.”

The petition for adjudication avers that Margaret T. Carroll, the sister, has neither purchased a home nor indicated to the accountant any intention of purchasing a home, and the auditing judge is requested to determine the effect of said sixth paragraph.

In Beck’s Appeal, 46 Pa. 527, at page 532, the rule which would appear to cover such legacies is stated as follows:

> . . . “in cases where words are added, expressing a purpose for which the gift is made, and where the purpose of the gift is the benefit solely of the donee *527himself, he can claim the gift without applying it to the purpose, and that it is conceived whether the purpose be in terms obligatory or not. Thus if a sum of money be bequeathed, to purchase for any person a ring, or an annuity, or a house, or to set him up in business, or for his maintenance and education, or to bind him apprentice, or towards the printing of a book, the profits of which are to be for his benefit, the legatee may claim the money without applying it, or binding himself to apply it to the specified purpose, and this even in spite of an express declaration by the testator, that he shall not be permitted to receive the money.”

There have been a number of other cases which follow the rule as stated in Beck’s Appeal, supra, such as Raab’s Estate, 82 Pa. Superior Ct. 281, Keen’s Estate, 1 Dist. R. 166, and, in this court, Rockhill’s Estate, 61 Montg. 262, and Balfour’s Estate, 60 Montg. 59; but, an examination of the language of the respective wills in those cases, as well as the language of the will in Beck’s Appeal, itself, discloses essential differences from the language used by this testator. Perhaps the closest to this will was the language used in Raab’s Estate, where the gift was to the legatee to educate him for the priesthood, and except to that extent was unqualified.

This will, in addition to the direction for use, specifies that the legacy is “to be used *only*toward the purchase of a home” (Italics supplied). The word “only” indicates beyond doubt testator’s intention that the legacy so given is to be used toward the purchase ,of a home for his sister and for no other purpose whatsover. Inasmuch as the condition has been so closely and so strongly coupled with the legacy, I am not disposed to thwart testator’s intention by following the dictum in Beck’s Appeal. The legacy of $3,000 is accordingly awarded to Anna M. Boyce, as trustee, *528to be used only toward the purchase of a home for Margaret T. Carroll: McCalla’s Estate, 16 Pa. Superior Ct. 202, 206. . . .
#### § 1008.101 Scope of this subpart.

This subpart describes the minimum standards of the S.A.F.E. Act that apply to a state's licensing and registering of loan originators. This subpart also provides the procedures that the Bureau follows to determine that a state does not have in place a system for licensing and registering mortgage loan originators that complies with the minimum standards. Upon making such a determination, the Bureau will impose the requirements and exercise the enforcement authorities described in subparts C and E of this part.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2310

WILLIAM C. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND

FISHERIES; COLONEL MASSENGILL, Interim

Director, Virginia Department of Game and

Inland Fisheries; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL; ROGER CHAFFE; DON HINCHEY; DAN HALL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District

Judge. (CA-05-102-1-JPJ)

Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 27, 2006

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William C. Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William C. Thompson appeals a district court order

summarily dismissing his civil rights complaint for failing to

state a claim. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s order and opinion and affirm for the reasons cited by the

district court. See Thompson v. Virginia Dep’t of Game & Inland

Fisheries, No. CA-05-102-1-JPJ (W.D. Va. Nov. 14, 2005). We deny

Thompson’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Official Journal L 359/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 359 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5930 December 2016 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 359

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5930 December 2016

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2394 of 26 May 2014 on State aid granted by Hungary to ValDeal Innovációs Szolgáltató Zártkörűen Működő Részvénytársaság (case SA.33186 (2012/C) (ex 2011/NN))
  (notified under document C(2014) 3193)

   (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2394 of 26 May 2014 on State aid granted by Hungary to ValDeal Innovációs Szolgáltató Zártkörűen Működő Részvénytársaság (case SA.33186 (2012/C) (ex 2011/NN))
  (notified under document C(2014) 3193)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2014) 3193)

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
41666.

#### COVIL et al. v. STANSELL et al.

Argued January 5, 1966

Decided February 23, 1966.

*Smith, Ringel, Martin & Lowe, Ralph H. Witt,*for appellants.

*Crespi & Mildon, Joseph S. Crespi,*for appellees.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. The Act of 1953 (Ga. L. 1953, Nov. Sess., p. 342; *Code Ann.*§ 3-512), provides for the dismissal of all cases wherein no order of continuance or otherwise is entered for a period of five years, and such Act is mandatory. See *Swint v. Smith,*219 Ga. 532 (134 SE2d 595).

2. A dismissal under the Act of 1953, supra, is not a dismissal deciding the merits of the plaintiff’s case so as to bar another suit upon the same cause of action. *City of Chamblee v. Village of North Atlanta,*217 Ga. 517 (123 SE2d 663).

3. Under the decision of the Supreme Court in *Clark v. New-some,*180 Ga. 97 (178 SE 386), a plaintiff who has had his action dismissed other than on the merits may refile within six months under *Code*§ 3-808 where the original action was not barred by the statute of limitation.

4. The plaintiff’s petition in the present case was not subject to defendant’s general demurrer which alleged that the refiling of the action was barred by the statute of limitation.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*
§ 1070.57 CFPB review of a request for amendment of records. ( a ) *Time limits.* The CFPB will acknowledge a request for amendment of records within ten (10) business days after it receives the request. In the acknowledgment, the CFPB may request additional information necessary for a determination on the request for amendment. The CFPB will make a determination on a request to amend a record promptly.
( b ) *Contents of response to a request for amendment.* When the CFPB responds to a request for amendment, the CFPB will inform the requester in writing whether the request is granted or denied, in whole or in part. If the CFPB grants the request, it will take the necessary steps to amend the record and, when appropriate and possible, notify prior recipients of the record of its action. If the CFPB denies the request, in whole or in part, it will inform the requester in writing: ( 1 ) Why the request (or portion of the request) was denied;
( 2 ) That the requester has a right to appeal; and
( 3 ) How to file an appeal.
ex101.htm












PURCHASE AGREEMENT












PROJECT NAME:   OVERSTREET  LEASE







Located in: MONROE COUNTY, KENTUCKY and CLAY COUNTY, TENNESSEE







Total Acreage: 597 +/- acres







100% Working Interest, 80% Net Revenue Interest












THIS Purchase Agreement is made and entered into on this 20th day of April 2015, by and between the undersigned, Solo International, Inc., whose address is 871 Coronado Center Drive, Suite 200, Henderson, NV 89052, hereinafter referred to as “SOLO”, and OMR Drilling and Acquisition LLC, a Kentucky corporation, whose address is 5405 S. Highway 127, Albany, Kentucky, hereinafter referred to as “OMR DRILLING”.












WITNESSETH












WHEREAS, OMR DRILLING has owns a certain Oil, Gas and Mineral Lease (the “Lease”) in and to lands situated in the counties and states noted hereinabove in an area known to the parties hereto by the project name noted hereinabove; and,







WHEREAS, SOLO desires to purchase said lease.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the parties hereto do hereby agree and stipulate as follows, to-wit:


 



	
1.  

	
SOLO agrees to pay to OMR DRILLING the amount of $25,000USD within 90 days in order to complete the purchase of said lease.


 








	
2.  

	
SOLO agrees and accepts the conditions of this Agreement and further acknowledges that the oil and gas business is inherently risky and that all or part of any investment on this project may be lost. With this in mind, OMR DRILLING makes no representation or guarantee regarding any amount of possible oil or gas production or the numerous risks in connection with an investment in this project.  SOLO further states that it can withstand the total loss of investment without causing a change in lifestyle.













	
3.  

	
This Agreement embodies the entire agreement between the parties hereto, and supersedes any and all prior negotiations or agreements in regard thereto.  No alteration or extensions of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by the parties hereto.













	
4.  

	
The parties hereto acknowledge that they have read the above and foregoing Agreement thoroughly, that there has been adequate opportunity to consult legal counsel concerning this Agreement and that they have executed the same freely and voluntarily on the date hereof.












 

 




  





1











  






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been agreed to and signed by each of the parties hereto, as of the day first above written.


 

 







                                                                                 Solo International, Inc.


 


 







BY:  _________________________________


                            MICHAEL SMITH


 


 


                           OMR Drilling and Acquisition, LLC.

















BY:  _________________________________


        NICHOLAS A. UPCHURCH


        MANAGING MEMBER














































  





2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets and unaudited condensed
consolidated statements of income found on pages 3, 4 and 5 of the Company's
Form 10-QSB for the year to date, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       3,754,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0      
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,608,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,018,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,453,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,493,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,759,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                     3,871,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,452,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,463,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,493,000 
<SALES>                                      7,741,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,975,000
<CGS>                                        5,853,000 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,853,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,663,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (541,000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (541,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (348,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.07)

</TABLE>
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 08196

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

08196\08196_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

08196\08196_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

08196\08196_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 08196\08196_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08196\08196_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08196\08196_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08196\08196_PlantID_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08196\Supporting Documentation\08196_Aerial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08196\Supporting Documentation\08196_Aerial Map_2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08196\Supporting Documentation\08196_Water Blance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00385

- CR

Joseph Pastquinel Scott , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 75561 , THE HONORABLE FANCY H. JEZEK , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Joseph Pastquinel S cott seeks to appeal his judgment of conviction and

s entence for agg ravated sexual assault. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.021(a)(2)(B). The trial court

has certified that this is a plea

- bargain case for which Scott has no right of appeal and that Scott

has waived his right to app eal. Accor dingly, we dismiss th e appeal for want of jurisdiction. See

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).

__________________________________________ Edward Smith , Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Smit h

Dismissed for Want of Ju risdiction

Filed: September 30, 2022

Do Not Publish
Order filed February 12, 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 11

- 00577

- CV

____________ TIEN SHAN, INC AND A LPER KARAALI , Appellants

V. PETROLEUM WHOLESALE, L.P ., Appellee

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris Coun ty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2007

- 46858



### ORDER
On January 15, 2013, this court reinstated this appeal after the bankruptcy actions filed by both appellants had been dismissed. Appellant Alper Karaali has appeared pro se in this appeal. We ordered that unless counsel made an appearance on behalf of Tien Shan, Inc., the corporate appellant, on or before January 28, 2013, the court would dismiss the corporation’s appeal.2

On January 29, 2013, appellant Alper Karaali filed a pro se brief. Counsel
has not m ade an appearance on behalf of Tien Shan, Inc. A corporation is required to be represented by a licensed attorney on appeal. S ee Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., U.S.A.
, 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996)

. Accordingly, we order the appeal on behalf of the corporation, Tien Shan,
Inc. DISMISSED. Alper Karaali’s appeal remains pending before the court.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Boyce and Donovan.
October 6 , 201 4

Docket FAA

- 20 00

- 81 80

Docket Management Facility

US Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

West Building Ground Floor

Room W12

- 140

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Extension of Exemption 5560, as amended

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Regio nal Airline Association (“RAA”), on behalf of its Part 135 member airlines, 1 petitions

pursuant to Sections 11.61 and 11.63 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) for an extension of

E xemption 5560I, which is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2014.

Exemption 5 5 60I provides relief from 14 CFR §§ 61.3(a) an d (c), 63.3(a), and 1 35

. 95 (a) . It

permits the establishment of special procedures that enable an operator to issue to its flight

crewmembers, on a temp orary basis, confirmation of any required crewmember certificates based upon

information contained in the operator's approved record system subject to certain conditions and

limitations. Exemption 5 560 has proved to be a useful device that benefits th e commercial aviation

industry and the flying public

Extending this exemption will not compromise or adversely affect safety, as t he conditions and

circumstances pertaining to safety and public intere st, which warranted th e grant of the original request

and subsequent extensions , continue to exist. The approved procedures, encompassing the conditions

and limitations established by previous grants, have been in use for over a decade with no know n

compromise of safety. It is also in the public interest as the exemption can prevent possible and

unnecessary delays or cancell ations of scheduled air service. For t hese reason s

, Exemption 5560I

should be extended.

1 AirNet Systems, Cape Air, Era Aviation, Grand Canyon Airlines/Scenic, Great Lakes Aviation, New England Airlines

1 of 3In accordance with FAR 11.87, RAA requests that the requirement for publication and comment

b e waived

. T he renewal of this exemption is not a controversial issue and this petition does not seek to

establish a precedent, r ather would merely continue an acc epted and established practice. Although

RAA requests waiver of publication, a summary of this petition is attached as required by FAR 11.81.

Please d o not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or require additional

information.

Respectfully submitted,

Stacey Bechdolt

Sr. Director, Safety & Technical Affairs

Regulatory Counse l

Regional Airline Association

2025 M Street, NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20036

202

- 367

- 1252

Bechdolt@raa.org

2 of 3SUMMARY

Petitioner: Regional Airline Association.

Section s of 14 CFR Affected:

14 CFR 61.3(a)

14 CFR 61.3(c)

14 CFR 1 35

. 95 (a )

Description of Relief Sought:

The Regional Airline Association petitions on behalf of its member airlines for an extension of

Exemption 5560I. This exemption permits RAA Part 135 member airlines to establish special

procedures that enable an air carrier to issue to its flight crewmembers, on a temporary basis,

confirmation of any required crewmember certificate based on information contained in the carrier’s

approved record system.

3 of 3
Exhibit      32.1

 

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (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 results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                                         |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| */s/                Ben-Tsur Joseph*                                                                                                         |   |   |   |
| Ben-Tsur                JosephChief                Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerDated:                August 17, 2007   |   |   |   |

 

----
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132132 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132132 COA: 271343 Macomb CC: 2005-000845-FH ROY DWIGHT COOKE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the August 15, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

p1120 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2006

Clerk