alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HERBERT WEISS, APPELLANT, v. SHAPIRO CANDY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT.

Argued May 7, 1940

Decided May 18, 1940.

Before Brogan, Chief Justice, and Justices Parker and Perskie.

For the appellant, *Louis Santorf.*

For the respondent, *Collins & Corbin.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Parker, J.

Defendant is described in the summons and complaint as a corporation of New York. The question before the Passaic Pleas was whether defendant had been legally served with the summons and complaint in this cause. The Pleas held to the contrary, and this holding is before us on plaintiff’s appeal.

Por the defendant it is first objected that the order setting aside the service is not a final judgment, and hence that appeal does not lie. But we consider that it had all the elements of finality, inasmuch as the case shows that the person on whom the service was made was a traveling salesman residing in Brooklyn, with no place of business in this state, and con*535sequently not within the language of the first paragraph of *R. S.*2:36-44. The mixed question of law and fact which was before the Pleas for decision was whether this-, salesman was a “servant of the corporation within this state and acting in the discharge of his duties.” If not, that is the end of the case, as it is not intimated that there is any other representative in this state on whom process may be served. The order is therefore a finality, and appeal lies. *Bickel*v. *Pennsylvania Steel Co.,*123 *Md.*226; 91 *Atl. Rep.*136. We have held to the same effect in cases of attachment. *Hanford*v. *Duchastel,*87 *N. J. L.*205; *Jaudel*v. *Schoelzke,*95 *Id.*171; *Burleigh*v. *Sartain,*114 *Id.*151, 153. See, also, *Sweeney*v. *Miner,*88 *Id.*361.

It remains, therefore, to decide whether the judge of the Common Pleas erred in setting aside the service; and we think that he did err. His decision followed as a precedent the case of *Jaeger*v. *Breslow Brothers,*9 *N. J. Mis. R.*1069. But an important and determinative feature of that case was that the salesman was authorized only to take orders, and the acceptance or rejection of those orders vested with the home office in New York; whereas in the case at bar the testimony of the salesman was that he had authority to accept orders and “finish the deal * * * in the store in New Jersey.” The case is not within the ruling in *Hoffman*v. *Carter,*117 *N. J. L.*305; affirmed in 118 *Id.*379, but rather within that in *Giovannini*v. *Hartford, &c., Co.,*130 *Id.*580.

The rule or order setting aside the service of process is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings therein.
**Exhibit 32**

 

## **CERTIFICATION**

 

*Each ofthe undersigned in the capacity indicated hereby certifies that, to hisknowledge, this Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 4, 2003fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in this Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of The William Carter Company.*

* *
|   | Date:  November 17, 2003 | /s/ FREDERICK J. ROWAN,  II |   |
|--------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|
|   |                               | Frederick J. Rowan, II      |   |
|   |                               | *Chief Executive Officer*   |   |
|   |                               |                        |
|   | Date:  November 17, 2003 | /s/ MICHAEL D. CASEY        |   |
|   |                               | Michael D. Casey            |   |
|   |                               | *Chief Financial Officer*   |   |
|        |                                    |                             |        |  |

 

1

----
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00397

- CV

Fabian Thomas

v.

Denise Daniel §

§

§

§ From the 431st District Court

o f Denton County (2010

- 61789

- 393)

July 18, 2013

Opinion by Justice Gabriel



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant Fabian Thomas shall pay all costs of this

appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_________________________________ Justice Lee Gabriel
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 24 (Friday, February 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 6297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2512]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a Commercial 
Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as 
a commercial gauger and laboratory.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, Intertek USA, Inc., 2780 Highway 69 N, Nederland, TX 77627, 
has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and 
petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs 
purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 
151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory 
analyses and gauger services should request and receive written 
assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or 
gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the 
specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved 
to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by 
calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#086b6a782664696a6079486c607b266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="127170623c7e73707a6352767a613c757d64">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web site listed below for a 
complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.
    http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_svcs/commercial_gaugers/.

DATES: The accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as 
commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on April 29, 2008. 
The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for April 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randall Breaux, Laboratories and 
Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-
1060.

    Dated: January 29, 2009.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. E9-2512 Filed 2-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 02-624 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2003 MT 155N JERRY HOKE, Petitioner and Appellant,
v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DRIVER'S LICENSE BUREAU, Respondent and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District, In and for the County of Ravalli, Cause No. DC-02-171, The Honorable Jeffrey H. Langton, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Steven N. Eschenbacher, Attorney at Law, Hamilton, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Jennifer Anders, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Jeffrey Hays, Darby City Attorney, Hamilton, Montana Submitted on Briefs: February 13, 2003 Decided: June 3, 2003 Filed:

__________________________________________ Clerk2 Justice Jim Regnier delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent but shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title, Supreme Court cause number, and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases issued by this Court. ¶2 The Appellant, Jerry Hoke, appeals from the August 16, 2002, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County. Therein, the District Court determined that Marshall Larry Rose (1) had a sufficient particularized suspicion that Hoke was in physical control of a vehicle upon ways of this state open to the public while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of the two, and (2) was justified in requesting that Hoke submit a breath sample for analysis. Accordingly, the District Court denied Hoke’s petition for reinstatement of his driver’s license. ¶3 The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and are, therefore, not clearly erroneous and whether the court’s conclusions of law are correct. Ray v. Nansel , 2002 MT 191, ¶¶ 19-20, 311 Mont. 135, ¶¶ 19-20, 53 P.3d 870, ¶¶ 19-20. ¶4 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to our Order dated February 11, 2003, amending Section 1.3 of our 1 996 Internal Operating Rules and providing for memorandum opinions.3 ¶5 On the face of the briefs and the record on appeal it is manifest that the appeal is without merit as the issues are clearly controlled by settled Montana law, which the District Court correctly interpreted, and because there is clearly sufficient evidence to support the court’s findings of fact. Therefore, ¶6 We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
/S/ JIM REGNIER
We Concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY /S/ JAMES C. NELSON /S/ PATRICIA COTTER /S/ JIM RICE
§ 390.412 Exemptions. The offering circular requirement of § 390.411 shall not apply to an issuer's offer or sale of securities: ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) Exempt from registration under either section 3(a) or section 4 of the Securities Act, but only by reason of an exemption other than section 3(a)(5) (for regulated State savings associations), and section 3(a)(11) (for intrastate offerings) of the Securities Act;
( c ) In a conversion from the mutual to the stock form of organization pursuant to12 CFR part 192, except for a supervisory conversion undertaken pursuant to subpart C of 12 CFR part 192;
( d ) In a non-public offering which satisfies the requirements of § 390.413;
( e ) That are debt securities issued in denominations of $100,000 or more, which are fully collateralized by cash, any security issued, or guaranteed as to principal and interest, by the United States, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Federal National Mortgage Association, Government National Mortgage Association or by interests in mortgage notes secured by real property;
( f ) Distributed exclusively abroad to foreign nationals: *Provided,* That— ( 1 ) The offering is made subject to safeguards reasonably designed to preclude distribution or redistribution of the securities within, or to nationals of, the United States; and
( 2 ) Such safeguards include, without limitation, measures that would be sufficient to ensure that registration of the securities would not be required if the securities were not exempt under the Securities Act; or
( g ) To its officers, directors or employees pursuant to an employee benefit plan or a dividend or interest reinvestment plan, and provided that any such plan has been approved by the majority of shareholders present in person or by proxy at an annual or special meeting of the shareholders of the State savings association.
§ 615.5101 Requirements for issuance. Except as provided in section 4.2(e) of the Act, each debt obligation shall meet the following requirements: ( a ) Each debt obligation shall be issued through the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation acting for System banks.
( b ) Each debt obligation shall be authorized by resolution of the board(s) of directors of the issuer(s). Each participating bank shall provide, in its authorizing resolution, for its primary liability on the portion of any consolidated or Systemwide obligation issued on its behalf and be jointly and severally liable for the payment of any additional sums as called upon by the Farm Credit Administration, in accordance with section 4.4 of the Act, in the event any bank primarily liable therefor is unable to pay.
( c ) Each issuance of debt obligations shall meet the collateral requirements set forth in subpart B.
( d ) Each issuance of debt obligations shall be approved by the Farm Credit Administration.
( e ) ( 1 ) Consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury required by 31 U.S.C. 9108 shall be conducted by System representatives and shall have occurred prior to each debt issuance.
( 2 ) Under policies adopted by the Board of the Farm Credit Administration, the Chairman will consult with the Secretary of the Treasury on a regular basis concerning the exercise by the System of the powers conferred under section 4.2 of the Act.
[54 FR 1160, Jan. 12, 1989]
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Open-File Report 2006-1260-B

**Prepared in Cooperation with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office of the State Geologist and Executive Office of Environmental Affairs**

# Surficial Geologic Map of the Salem Depot-Newburyport East-Wilmington-Rockport 16-Quadrangle Area in Northeast Massachusetts

**Compiled by Byron D. Stone, Janet Radway Stone, and Mary L. DiGiacomo-Cohen**

| Surficial Geologic Map (1:50,000 scale, 54x36 inches) [24-MB PDF] |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
**Non-Guideline Applications: Introductory Remarks** **Tyler Fox 9** **th Conference on Air Quality Modeling** **October 9, 2008 Presentations** **• 2002 NATA—Ted Palma (OAQPS) • AERMOD Experiences in Birmingham** **PM2.5 Study—Leigh Bacon (ADEM) • Use of Photochemical Models for NEPA:** **New Oil & Gas Wells—Ralph Morris (ENVIRON)** **Toxics Risk Assessments • Appendix W states . . .** **– “We separately issue guidance for use of modeling for** **facility-specific and community-scale air toxics ri sk** **assessments through the Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library.”** **• http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_main.html** **– “We recognize that the tools and approaches recommended therein will eventually reflect the** **improved formulations of the AERMOD modeling system and we expect to appropriately incorporate** **them as expeditiously as practicable.” Ozone/PM2.5/Regional Haze** **Modeling Guidance • “Guidance on the use of Models and Other** **Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and** **Regional Haze” – Original draft—Jan 2001** **– Draft final—Sept 2006 – Final version—April 2007** **• http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/gu** **ide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf Local Area Analysis** **• Focused on evaluating influence of primary PM2.5 at monitors** **– Provides method to examine local primary PM source contributions at FRM monitors** **• Replaces “hotspot” analysis from draft PM2.5 (2001) guidance** **– 2001 guidance specified dispersion modeling in unmonitored areas w/ high primary PM2.5 emissions** **• Local area analysis can use dispersion models or fine grid Eulerian model** **Local Area Analysis • Model local sources to examine** **contributions to nonattainment and impacts of potential controls** **– High resolution grid model • 1 km (or finer?) resolution** **• Follow “standard” guidance procedures – Dispersion modeling** **• Need to combine the results of the photochemical and dispersion models** **• The modeling guidance outlines a framework to do this** **PM2.5 Local Area Analysis Modeling Workshop** **• EPA sponsored October 2007 workshop in Rosemont, IL to discuss modeling experiences** **and issues/recommendations • Several state presentations** **– Cleveland, Cincinnati, & Steubenville (Ohio EPA) – St Louis Area (IL EPA)** **–**Birmingham, AL area (ADEM)**– Atlanta, GA (GA EPD) – Allegheny Co, PA (Allegheny Co Health Dept)** **– Detroit, MI (MDEQ)**
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 79 (Monday, April 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 21793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10117]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Engineering Education and Centers; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Engineering Education and 
Centers (173).
    Date/Time: May 31-June 2, 2000, 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, Rooms 360 & 380, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Persons: Dr. Cheryl Cathey, Program Director, 
Engineering Education and Centers Division, National Science 
Foundation, Room 585, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. (703) 
306-1380.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals submitted to the 
Nanoscale Modeling and Simulation Program (Small Group Initiative) 
as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: April 13, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-10117 Filed 4-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6608

MILTON TOWNSEND, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus W. P. ROGERS, Regional Director; MARCIA SEAY, Institutional Ombudsman; SUSAN CARSON, Operations Officer; ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden; SHEILA HUGHES, Assistant Grievance Ombudsman, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-781) Submitted: July 21, 2006 Decided: August 10, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Milton Townsend, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Milton Townsend, a Virginia inmate, appealed the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Townsend’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. On appeal, Townsend contended that he did not receive notice of the magistrate judge’s report. We remanded for further proceedings on whether Townsend received the report. After an evidentiary hearing held by the magistrate judge, the magistrate judge’s report proposed that Townsend did not receive timely notice of the original report. Neither party filed objections and the district court adopted the report and forwarded its memorandum and order upon remand to this court. Because Townsend did not receive timely notice of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, we vacate the district court’s final order dismissing Townsend’s complaint entered April 5, 2004. We remand the case to the district court for further proceedings to give Townsend the opportunity to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation entered February 27, 2004, or file an amended complaint, as outlined in the magistrate judge’s report. 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. VACATED AND REMANDED
§ 625.29 Payment of award. ( a ) An applicant seeking payment of an award shall submit to the Secretary to the Board a copy of the final decision granting the award, accompanied by a certification that the applicant will not seek judicial review of the decision. The required submission and certification should be sent to: Secretary to the Board, Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090.
( b ) The FCA will pay the amount awarded to the applicant within 60 days of receipt of the applicant's submission and certification.
#### PITFORD *v.*ARMSTRONG.

Trespasser — force in defence of possession — may take possession from wrong doer.

A man in possession of a house may assault and beat off any one wrongfully forcing his way I into it.

jlf he go beyond defence, and use force to obtain possession, or for revenge or punishment of j the aggressor, he is a" trespasser.

jThe owner of land may take the possession frgm a wrong doer, and hold it, but is liable if ’I he break the peace or use force.

- Trespass, quare clausum fregit, assault, &c. Plea, 1. Not guilty. 2. That the act was done in defence of the possession of defendant’s house.

By the Court,

to the jury. A man in the actual possession of a house, may defend his possession against any one who would force his way into it; but if he_have possession wrongfully, the holder of the legal right may take possession, if he can do so without a breach of the peace, and hold it. The act done to constitute a valid justification to the defendant, must have been done in the necessary *defence*of his property, against the aggression of the plaintiff, not to *regain*possession, nor for *revenge*or *punishment*for an injury. If the defendant has gone beyond protection, he is a trespasser.

Verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment.