alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Fort White Hard Rock Company, a Corporation, *Appellant,*v. Augustine L. Taveau and Wife, *Appellees.*

Opinion Filed February 11, 1913.

1. Upon a bill for an accounting without specific prayers, a decree was passed ordering an accounting in general terms; an *130appeal therefrom does not call for an adjudicating as to specific items.

2. A petition for modification of a supersedeas will be denied, when no great emergency appears and the cause has been reached for final hearing.

Appealed from the Circuit Court for Columbia County.

Order affirmed.

*A. J. Henry,*for Appellant;

*B. T. Boozer,*for Appellees.

Cockrell, J.

Taveau and wife filed their bill for an accounting and other relief upon a ten year lease of lands for phosphate purposes, executed in 1904, as supplemented by another lease executed in 1907. There was a decree adjudicating equities in their favor and ordering an accounting “under the terms of the instrument sought to be foreclosed,” from which decree the Hard Rock Company appeals.

No objection is made to the generality of the order of reference, but the appellant assumes an adjudication as to various items claimed in the bill, for which assumption we find no basis on this record. Until these claims have in fact been adjudged in the Circuit Court, we must decline to attempt a review of the points in issue. The decree cannot be made specific by reference to tlie prayer of the bill seeing that the prayer is likewise general, no specific basis for an accounting being therein requested.

The answer upon which issue was joined and evidence taken, sets up defenses in abatement, or possibly in bar, to the right to an accounting at all, and these alone were *131submitted to and passed upon in the decree before us.. Upon these issues the Chancellor is abundantly sustained in the proofs submitted to him.

The appellant has applied for a modification of the supersedeas obtained by it, so as to permit the sale of the phosphate now mined and on the ground. Upon the going down of our mandate, the Circuit Court will soon be in complete control of this aspect of the case, and the emergency and merit of the application are not such as to justify us in entertaining the motion.

The decree is affirmed.

Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
§ 313.51 Refunds. ( a ) Where the FDIC is the creditor agency, it shall promptly refund any amount deducted under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 5514 when the debt is compromised or otherwise found not to be owing to the United States, or when an administrative or judicial order directs the FDIC to make a refund.
( b ) Unless required by law or contract, such refunds shall not bear interest.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136460 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. GEORGETTE MERICKA, Stephen J. Markman, 

Petitioner-Appellant, Justices 

v SC: 136460 

 COA: 280596 

St. Clair CC: 07-000015-AA 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH,

Respondent-Appellee, 

and 

ST. CLAIR COUNTY COMMUNITY 

MENTAL HEALTH,

Intervening Respondent-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 3, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted. 

l0917 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 24, 2008 

 Clerk
§ 7.2008 Oath of national bank directors. ( a ) *Administration of the oath.* The oath of directors must be administered by: ( 1 ) A notary public, including one who is a director but not an officer of the national bank; or
( 2 ) Any person, including one who is a director but not an officer of the national bank, having an official seal and authorized by the State to administer oaths.
( b ) *Execution of the oath.* Each national bank director must execute either a joint or individual oath at the first meeting of the board of directors that the director attends after the director is appointed or elected. A national bank director must take another oath upon re-election, notwithstanding uninterrupted service. Appropriate sample oaths may be found in the Charter Booklet of the Comptroller's Licensing Manual available at *www.occ.gov .*
( c ) *Filing and recordkeeping.* A national bank must file the original executed oaths of directors with the appropriate OCC licensing office, as defined in 12 CFR 5.3, and retain a copy in the bank's records.
[61 FR 4862, Feb. 9, 1996, as amended at 64 FR 60099, Nov. 4, 1999; 82 FR 8104, Jan. 23, 2017; 85 FR 80470, Dec. 11, 2020; 85 FR 83735, Dec. 22, 2020]
# Dziennik Urzędowy C 463I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-1002 |
| --- | --- |
| Dziennik Urzędowy
  Unii Europejskiej | C 463I |
| | |
| Wydanie polskie | Informacje i zawiadomienia | Rocznik 6416 listopada 2021 |

ISSN 1977-1002

Dziennik Urzędowy

Unii Europejskiej

C 463I

Wydanie polskie

Informacje i zawiadomienia

Rocznik 6416 listopada 2021

---

| Spis treści | Strona |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Informacje |
| | INFORMACJE INSTYTUCJI, ORGANÓW I JEDNOSTEK ORGANIZACYJNYCH UNII EUROPEJSKIEJ |
| | Komisja Europejska |
| 2021/C 463 I/01 | Mianowanie urzędnika przeprowadzającego spotkanie wyjaśniające w niektórych postępowaniach dotyczących konkurencji | 1 |

Spis treści

Strona

IV   Informacje

INFORMACJE INSTYTUCJI, ORGANÓW I JEDNOSTEK ORGANIZACYJNYCH UNII EUROPEJSKIEJ

Komisja Europejska

2021/C 463 I/01

Mianowanie urzędnika przeprowadzającego spotkanie wyjaśniające w niektórych postępowaniach dotyczących konkurencji

1

---

| PL | |
| --- | --- |

PL

---

IV Informacje

INFORMACJE INSTYTUCJI, ORGANÓW I JEDNOSTEK ORGANIZACYJNYCH UNII EUROPEJSKIEJ

Komisja Europejska

| 16.11.2021 | PL | Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej | CI 463/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2021

PL

Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej

CI 463/1

---

Mianowanie urzędnika przeprowadzającego spotkanie wyjaśniające w niektórych postępowaniach dotyczących konkurencji

(2021/C 463 I/01)

W następstwie przeniesienia Woutera WILSA Komisja mianowała Erica GIPPINIEGO FOURNIERA na stanowisko urzędnika przeprowadzającego spotkanie wyjaśniające ze skutkiem od dnia 1 grudnia 2021 r., zgodnie z decyzją Przewodniczącego Komisji Europejskiej z dnia 13 października 2011 r. w sprawie funkcji i zakresu uprawnień urzędnika przeprowadzającego spotkanie wyjaśniające w niektórych postępowaniach z zakresu konkurencji (Dz.U. L 275 z 20.10.2011, s. 29).

---
§ 120.19 Misuse of alcohol. ( a ) This section applies to covered employees who perform air traffic control duties directly or by contract for an employer that is an air traffic control facility not operated by the FAA or the US military.
( b ) *Alcohol concentration.* No covered employee shall report for duty or remain on duty requiring the performance of safety-sensitive functions while having an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater. No employer having actual knowledge that an employee has an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater shall permit the employee to perform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.
( c ) *On-duty use.* No covered employee shall use alcohol while performing safety-sensitive functions. No employer having actual knowledge that a covered employee is using alcohol while performing safety-sensitive functions shall permit the employee to perform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.
( d ) *Pre-duty use.* No covered employee shall perform air traffic control duties within 8 hours after using alcohol. No employer having actual knowledge that such an employee has used alcohol within 8 hours shall permit the employee to perform or continue to perform air traffic control duties.
( e ) *Use following an accident.* No covered employee who has actual knowledge of an accident involving an aircraft for which he or she performed a safety-sensitive function at or near the time of the accident shall use alcohol for 8 hours following the accident, unless he or she has been given a post-accident test under subpart F of this part or the employer has determined that the employee's performance could not have contributed to the accident.
( f ) *Refusal to submit to a required alcohol test.* A covered employee may not refuse to submit to any alcohol test required under subpart F of this part. An employer may not permit an employee who refuses to submit to such a test to perform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24035-12 Filed:04/19/23 Entered:04/19/23 22:37:35 Desc:

Exhibit Page 1 of 1
#### § 121.11 Rules applicable to operations in a foreign country.

Each certificate holder shall, while operating an airplane within a foreign country, comply with the air traffic rules of the country concerned and the local airport rules, except where any rule of this part is more restrictive and may be followed without violating the rules of that country.

[Doc. No. 16383, 43 FR 22641, May 25, 1978]
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3751

To require that the Office of Personnel Management study and present 

options under which dental and vision benefits could be made available 

to Federal employees and retirees and other appropriate classes of individuals. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2004

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To require that the Office of Personnel Management study 

and present options under which dental and vision benefits could be made available to Federal employees and 

retirees and other appropriate classes of individuals.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REPORTING REQUIREMENT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than June 30, 2004, the 

5 Office of Personnel Management shall submit to Congress 

6 a report describing and evaluating options whereby dental 

7 and vision benefits could be made available to—

8 (1) Federal employees and retirees; 
2

•HR 3751 IH 

1 (2) qualified relatives of Federal employees and 

2 retirees; and 

3 (3) other appropriate classes of individuals. 

4 (b) REQUIRED CONTENT.—The report shall in5 clude—

6 (1) a description of the specific benefits that 

7 could be offered, including any relevant maximums, 

8 limitations, exclusions, and definitions; 

9 (2) a description of the classes of individuals 

10 who should be made eligible for benefits; 

11 (3) a description and assessment of the various 

12 contracting arrangements available to the Govern13 ment, including whether benefits should be con14 tracted for on a regional or national basis; 

15 (4) the estimated cost of those benefits, includ16 ing a statement as to whether any regular Govern17 ment contributions or allocation for start-up costs 

18 might be necessary or appropriate; 

19 (5) a statement as to how those benefits might 

20 be offered through—

21 (A) the Federal employees health benefits 

22 program, 

23 (B) one or more programs apart from the 

24 Federal employees health benefits program, 
3

•HR 3751 IH 

1 (C) the program described in subpara2 graph (A) in combination with one or more of 

3 the programs described in subparagraph (B), 

4 and 

5 (D) any other program or method not oth6 erwise described in this paragraph, 

7 as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each; 

8 (6) a recommendation from the Office as to its 

9 preferred method or methods for providing such ben10 efits; and 

11 (7) any legislation or other measures the Office 

12 considers necessary in order to implement any of the 

13 foregoing.

Æ
# Official Journal C 281/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 281 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6326 August 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 281

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6326 August 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 281/01 | Euro exchange rates — 25 August 2020 | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 281/01

Euro exchange rates — 25 August 2020

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 281/02 | Publication of an application for registration of a name pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 2 |

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2020/C 281/02

Publication of an application for registration of a name pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

2

---

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

EN
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 28, 2020

No. 04-20-00424-CV

IN RE David E. MARTINEZ

From the County Court at Law, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 

 Honorable Lewis G. Owens Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

On July 27, 2020, Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and requested expedited 

consideration due to the upcoming deadline to send out ballots. 

This court believes a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires 

further consideration. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). Respondent and Real Party in Interest may 

file a response to the petition in this court no later than September 4, 2020. Any response must 

conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4. 

It is so ORDERED August 28, 2020.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT

FILE COPY
§ 797.8 Right to agency review. ( a ) If the debtor disputes the claim, the debtor may request a review of NCUA's determination of the existence of the debt or of the amount of the debt. If only part of the claim is disputed, the undisputed portion should be paid by the payment due date.
( b ) To obtain a review, the debtor shall submit a written request for review to the Executive Director within 15 calendar days after receipt of the Notice. The debtor's request for review shall state the basis on which the claim is disputed.
( c ) The NCUA shall promptly notify the debtor, in writing, that the NCUA has received the request for review. The NCUA shall conduct its review of the claim in accordance with § 797.9.
<PAGE>
                                           EXHIBIT 28.2
                                           ------------
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT

To the Board of Directors
  United Companies Lending Corporation

We  have  examined management's assertion about United  Companies
Lending Corporation's compliance with  the  minimum  servicing
standards identified  in  the Mortgage  Bankers  Association  of
America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
(USAP) as of and for the year ended December 31, 1996 included in
the accompanying management assertion.  Management is responsible
for  United  Companies  Lending Corporation's  compliance  with
those  minimum  servicing standards.  Our  responsibility  is  to
express  an opinion on management's assertion about the  entity's
compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established
by  the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants,  and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence  about
United Companies Lending Corporation's compliance with the minimum
servicing standards and performing  such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the  circumstances.  We believe that our examination  provides
a reasonable basis for  our opinion.  Our examination does not provide
a legal determination on United Companies Lending Corporation's compliance 
with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that  United  Companies
Lending Corporation complied with the aforementioned minimum
servicing  standards as of and for the year  ended December  31,
1996 is fairly stated, in all material respects.


Deloitte & Touche LLP

February 28, 1997

                                   PAGE 8


<PAGE>
            UNITED COMPANIES LENDING CORPORATION
                          (LETTERHEAD)

As of and for the year ended December 31, 1996, United Companies
Lending Corporation has complied in all material respects with
the  minimum  servicing standards set  forth  in  the  Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program 
for Mortgage Bankers.  As of and for this same period, United
Companies Lending Corporation had in effect fidelity bond and
errors and omissions policies in the amounts of $10,000,000 and
$4,000,000, respectively.




/s/ J. TERRELL BROWN                  3/25/97
------------------------------------  -------------
J. Terrell Brown                      Date
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ JACK TALKINGTON                   3/25/97
------------------------------------  -------------
Jack Talkington                       Date
Senior Vice President and Controller


/s/ DALE QUICK                        3/25/97
------------------------------------  -------------
Dale Quick                            Date
Senior Vice President and
Servicing Manager

                          PAGE 9
C B ASSOCIATES
                             23586 Parksouth Street
                               Calabasas, CA 91302
                       (818) 222-2604; Fax (818) 222-9455

                            LEASE EXTENSION AGREEMENT

It is thereby agreed by and between Lessor, C. B. Associates, and Lessee, UNAPIX
INTERNATIONAL, that the leases on suites 301 and 302, at 4515 Van Nuys
Boulevard, be and hereby are extended for one year, commencing April 1, 1996
through March 31, 1997 at the current rental rate of $2,300 per month for suite
301, and $1,400 per month for suite 302. All the other terms and conditions to
remain the same.

Lessee agrees to give Lessor notice 90 days before the end of the above
referenced term as to whether Lessee intends to further extend said leases. If
Lessee does not intend to extend, Lessor shall have the right to show and market
said suite during the final 90 days of said term.

Dated: 4/22/96                         Dated: May 1996


C B ASSOCIATES                         UNAPIX INTERNATIONAL
Lessor                                 Lessee



By: /s/ Lucille Chauncey               BY: /s/ Scott Hanock
    ------------------------               -------------------------------
                                           Scott Hanock
Exhibit 32.1

OFFICER CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002,
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lenox Group Inc. (the Company) for
the year ended December 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Form 10-K), each of the
undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers knowledge:

(1) The Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|      |                |                                                     | 
|----- | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | 
|Date: | March 15, 2007 | /s/ Marc L. Pfefferle                               | 
|      |                |                                                     | 
|      |                | Marc L. Pfefferle                                   | 
|      |                | Chief Executive Officer                             | 
|      |                |                                                     | 
|Date: | March 15, 2007 | /s/ Timothy J. Schugel                              | 
|      |                |                                                     | 
|      |                | Timothy J. Schugel                                  | 
|      |                | Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer | 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.

---
#### § 5.62 Date of declaration of dividend.

A national bank must use the date a dividend is declared for the purposes of determining compliance with this subpart.

[61 FR 60363, Nov. 27, 1996, as amended at 85 FR 80469, Dec. 11, 2020]
June 25, 2015

Mr. Justin Ness GDA Engineers

502 33 rd Street Cody, WY 82414

Dear Mr.Ness:

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 can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 9, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2198), 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,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 9, 2021

No. 04-21-00231-CV

IN RE Michael Andrew DAVIS and Waterfleet, LLC, Relators

Original Proceeding1

ORDER

Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and motion for temporary relief are DENIED. This 

amended order replaces this court’s June 4, 2021 administrative order.

It is so ORDERED on June 9, 2021.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of June, 2021.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019CI13387 pending in the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, 

Texas, the Honorable Larry Noll presiding.