alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Downs *et al.*Appellants, *v.*Ladd *et al.*

Where, in an action of debt upon a bill single, verdict was rendered for a certain sum as *damages,*instead of debt and damages, held that the error was merely clerical, and did not affect the validity of the verdict.

In error from the circuit court of the county of Itawamba.

J. Thompson for plaintiffs in error.

Mitchell, contra.

Mr. Justice Trotter

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendants in error brought an action of debt in the court below upon a bill single given by the plaintiffs to them for the sum of *$696*13, and payable on the 35th day of December, 1837. The declaration contains but one count, and is in the usual form. The plea of payment was filed, and issue taken upon it. At June term, 1838, there was a verdict for the defendants in error for the sum of seven hundred and twenty-two dollars and twelve cents, in *damages;*upon which the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs below for the sum returned in the verdict.

There are several errors assigned, but we do not deem it necessary to notice any but the one which objects to the form of the verdict and judgment, the others being only modifications of the same assignment. It is said that the *action, of debt does not*sound in damages, and therefore the jury should have found the debt and damages for its detention. This would have been more formal, and have better conformed to the nature of the action in this case. The error is, however, merely clerical, and can do no prejudice to the defendant. The verdict finds the debt and interest, and no more; and the judgment compels the defendants to pay no more in the shape in which it is entered than if it had been artificially set down in the usual mode. The gross sum is the same in both forms; and the defendants are as little injured by paying it under the denomination of *damages,*as under the more technical and precise terms of *debt*and *damages.*The case *41of Churchill *v.*Rogers, Hardin’s Rep. 183, is in all respects like the case at bar. The action in that case was debt, the pleas of payment and set-off were filed and issue joined. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff in *damages,*and upon error to the Com’t of Appeals the finding was held not to vitiate the judgment. The case of Gano *v.*Slaughter, Hardin’s Rep. 76, is also a direct authority to support the verdict and judgment in this case. The Court say that when the judgment is entered for damages, when it should have been debt, it ought to be considered a clerical mistake, which is not material, since the pleadings show that it must have been the intention of the Court to give the judgment in proper form. It is then a mistake in *form,*which, as it does not injure the defendants, shall not be the means of turning the plaintiff round to a new action.

The judgment must be affirmed.
#### KERR *v.*HOOKS, ET AL.

Partition — report excepted to — set aside.

Partition under tire act of 1831 lor the partition of real estate, should either be made by setting off to the demandant his portion, and leaving the residue an entire tract for the other tenants, or by apportioning to each his proportion.

A report setting off to the demandant his part and leaving the residue divided into several parts, will, if excepted to, be set aside.

Bill in Chancery for partition of a tract of three hundred and sixty acres of land. The complainant claims an undivided third part. A decretal order was heretofore made to set off the complainant’s part according to the statute.' The report of partition is now made which is excepted to.

*G.*Collings, for the exceptions.

*Liggett,*contra.

Wright, J.

This case was brought here from the county of Brown, under advisement. The report excepted to, sets off to the complainant one hundred and ten.acres, so laid off that the residue is separated into four tracts, of four, twenty-six, eighty-nine, and one hundred and sixteen acres, three of which are altogether cut off from connection with each other, and the other is separated into two parts by a ravine. The annexed diagram shows something like the partition.



The question is can such a partition be sustained? The act referred to in the decretal order, requires the sheriff to set off to the defendant, or each party in interest, such portion of said estate as the court shall order: (29 *O. L. 255)*or if the estate will not divide, then, to return an *610appraisement in order to a sale. This estate of three hundred and sixty acres, was either to be divided into two parts, one-third to complainants and two-thirds in a tract undivided for the other four heirs, or into five parts, one hundred and twenty acres to the complainant, and sixty acres to each of the other heirs. Such is not the division, and no reason is reported for making one so obviously unjust as that returned.

The exceptions are allowed. The entry is to be certified to Brown county.
§ 121.249 Cowling. ( a ) Cowling must be made and supported so as to resist the vibration inertia, and air loads to which it may be normally subjected.
( b ) Provisions must be made to allow rapid and complete drainage of the cowling in normal ground and flight attitudes. Drains must not discharge in locations constituting a fire hazard. Parts of the cowling that are subjected to high temperatures because they are near exhaust system parts or because of exhaust gas impingement must be made of fireproof material. Unless otherwise specified in these regulations all other parts of the cowling must be made of material that is at least fire resistant.
§ 1206.501 Review. ( a ) Review means the process of examining a document(s) located in response to a request to determine whether the document(s) or any portion thereof is disclosable. Review does not include time spent resolving general legal or policy issues regarding the application of exemptions.
( b ) Review fees will be assessed in connection with the initial review of the record, i.e., the review conducted by Agency staff to determine whether an exemption applies to a particular record or portion of a record.
( c ) Review fees will be charged to commercial use requesters.
( d ) No charge will be made for review at the administrative appeal stage of exemptions applied at the initial review stage. However, when the appellate authority determines that a particular exemption no longer applies, any costs associated with an additional review of the records in order to consider the use of other exemptions may be assessed as review fees.
( e ) Review fees will be charged at the same rates as those charged for a search under § 1206.500.
( f ) Review fees can be charged even if the record(s) reviewed ultimately is not disclosed.
( g ) Review fees will not include costs incurred in resolving issues of law or policy that may be raised in the course of processing a request under this section.
#### § 1209.400 Scope.

This subpart describes the functions, authority, and membership of the NASA Inventions and Contributions Board (hereafter referred to as “the Board”).
Mr. Brian Swanson 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Brainerd lakes Area 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

Corporation 

We're read}t. Let's grow! 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

499 Seventh Street SW 

Washington, D.C 20590 

Dear Mr. Swanson: 

': :'! ~ ~$ ' -~- :. : j .! ' J ·i J!:Ol 

The Brainerd Lakes Area Economic Development Corporation (BLAEDC) encourages you to 

consider SkyWest's proposal to serve the Brainerd I Crow Wing County Community. 

High quality air service is critical to our community's future growth and viability. Everything 

we know about SkyWest leads us to believe they will be a wonderful partner in meeting our 

community's needs and vision for the future. Their business record, the CRJ200 aircraft, the 

capability to use our jet bridge, and business relationship with Delta are all factors in our 

recommendation. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

<Jl'A~t\. 4-k~A~~- •: __ ) ' 

Sheila Haverkamp, Executive Director 

Brainerd Lakes Area Economic Development Corporation 

Cc: Mr. Dennis J. DeVany 

SH/eo 

124 N. 6

11

' St Brainerd, MN 56401- www.growbrainerdlakes.org- Phone: 218.828.0096-888.322.5232 

Se!Ving Crow Wing County and all of if's communities.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3666

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase from 13 to 15 

the age of dependents who may be taken into account for purposes 

of determining the credit for expenses for household and dependent 

care services necessary for gainful employment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2003

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia (for himself and Mrs. JONES of Ohio) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

from 13 to 15 the age of dependents who may be taken 

into account for purposes of determining the credit for 

expenses for household and dependent care services necessary for gainful employment.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AGE OF DEPENDENTS TAKEN 

4 INTO ACCOUNT FOR PURPOSES OF CREDIT 

5 FOR DEPENDENT CARE EXPENSES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b)(1)(A) and sub7 section (e)(5)(B) of section 21 of the Internal Revenue 
2

•HR 3666 IH 

1 Code of 1986 (relating to expenses for household and de2 pendent care services necessary for gainful employment) 

3 are each amended by striking ‘‘13’’ and inserting ‘‘15’’. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### § 125.355 Airplane equipment.

No person may release an airplane unless it is airworthy and is equipped as prescribed.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24035-37 Filed:04/19/23 Entered:04/19/23 22:37:35 Desc:

Exhibit Page 1 of 2
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24035-37 Filed:04/19/23 Entered:04/19/23 22:37:35 Desc:

Exhibit Page 2 of 2
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

__________________________________________

In re: )

) PROMESA

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND ) Title III

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, )

)

 as representative of ) No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

 )

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, )

)

 Debtor. )

In re: )

) PROMESA

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND ) Title III

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, )

)

 as representative of ) No. 17 BK 3567-LTS

 )

PUERTO RICO HIGHWAYS & )

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, )

 )

 Debtor. )

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

NOW APPEARS Peaje Investments LLC, a party-in-interest in the above-captioned 

cases and respectfully informs that its interests in the referenced actions will also be represented 

by:

Ricardo R. Lozada-Franco

MONSERRATE SIMONET & GIERBOLINI, LLC

USDC # 301807

101 San Patricio Ave., Suite 1120, Guaynabo, PR 00968

Tel.: (787) 620-5300 / Fax: (787) 620-5305

Email: rlozada@msglawpr.com

Henceforth, all correspondence and communications shall also be addressed to the 

undersigned counsel.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:253 Filed:06/02/17 Entered:06/02/17 16:49:20 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
2

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this 2

nd day of June, 2017.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I hereby certify that on this same date, I electronically 

filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will provide 

notice thereof to all attorneys of record.

MONSERRATE SIMONET & 

GIERBOLINI, LLC

/s/ Ricardo R. Lozada-Franco

Ricardo R. Lozada-Franco

USDC-PR No. 301807

101 San Patricio Avenue

Maramar Plaza, Suite 1120

Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

Phone: (787) 620-5300

Fax: (787) 620-5305

Dora L. Monserrate Peñagarícano

USDC-PR No. 212612

101 San Patricio Avenue

Maramar Plaza, Suite 1120

Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

Phone: (787) 620-5300

Fax: (787) 620-5305

DECHERT LLP

Allan S. Brilliant (pro hac vice)

Robert J. Jossen (pro hac vice)

Andrew C. Harmeyer (pro hac vice)

1095 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10036

 -andG. Eric Brunstad, Jr. (pro hac vice)

90 State House Square

Hartford, Connecticut 06103

Attorneys for Peaje Investments LLC

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:253 Filed:06/02/17 Entered:06/02/17 16:49:20 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
Attachment 34Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:24634-34   Filed:06/22/23   Entered:06/22/23 18:57:29    Desc: Attachment 34   Page 1 of 1
Jrtf\AI2(J\ I 1~ :JOt 5 

Ar?:JZL A({)~JA 

CCLJR.T CUZ12t_ 

CCOJlJ d= Cl21fo't:Jnr-L APf1mt_;; 

· P.o. f1Cx 11 nB ~ Cf-Pl.T(L ~7A 1ILV 

Pl.JS,1JAJ I -trc:XAS: l s 111 

RECEIVED IN 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPF.ALS 

~ 18 2015 

T fVYI ILDTI.FYlO( Yw tr- fl!lY Ct-1/-\(JGIZ 1LJ A /)J)(/.2~! 1 77-IBZERJ?_r:_) Pl£A9:_ ~.:LD f-iL COJa<J5~J)J5DCE. To 71-IC FaUJUiiJ' ; 

ll.8JI-~n 12. VA f2A 

Lt'J. I Y ?tJ lfo 5 

L( d. 5() /-{ l.JY M I 

r?££tJILLE I Tf51(A r. l~ 102. 

T.u PD"J1TILJLJ, COJJ) YLV PLEAt;c IL:DTII::Y rvr~ OF Tt-JE \.TATur 

OF CAJrE. LXJ, WI< -[6, 9£27 -()L(. 

1(ESf-fOA1.L '/I 

12.e.Ufl7 12. U A J2A
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 24457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10437]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 042100A]


Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Council's Recreational Fisheries Data Task Force (RFDTF) 
will hold a meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held May 11, 2000, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Western Pacific Fishery 
Management Council office, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 
96813.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; 
telephone: 808-522-8220.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This will be the fifth meeting of the RFDTF 
which will discuss the following topics: review of minutes from fourth 
Task Force meeting, review of proposal for redefining commercial 
fishermen, review of a rapid survey instrument to establish total 
pelagic catch in Hawaii, review of longer term strategies for obtaining 
recreational fishery data in Hawaii, and an update on the recent 
(sixth) meeting to establish an international management regime for 
tuna and tuna-like species in the Central-Western Pacific.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come 
the RFDTF for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be 
subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted 
to those issues specifically identified in this agenda and any issues 
arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action 
under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public 
has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the 
emergency.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, 808-522-8220 (voice) or 808-
522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to meeting date.

    Dated: April 21, 2000.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 00-10437 Filed 4-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
§ 13.221 Notice of hearing. ( a ) *Notice.* The administrative law judge must provide each party with notice of the date, time, and location of the hearing at least 60 days before the hearing date.
( b ) *Date, time, and location of the hearing.* The administrative law judge to whom the proceedings have been assigned must set a reasonable date, time, and location for the hearing. The administrative law judge must consider the need for discovery and any joint procedural or discovery schedule submitted by the parties when determining the hearing date. The administrative law judge must give due regard to the convenience of the parties, the location where the majority of the witnesses reside or work, and whether the location is served by a scheduled air carrier.
( c ) *Earlier hearing.* With the consent of the administrative law judge, the parties may agree to hold the hearing on an earlier date than the date specified in the notice of hearing.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter
ending March 31, 2004 of Joule Inc. (the "Company") as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bernard G.
Clarkin, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.



/s/ BERNARD G. CLARKIN
-------------------------------
Bernard G. Clarkin,
Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Secretary

May 12, 2004
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24466 Filed:06/07/23 Entered:06/08/23 12:46:48 Desc: MainDocument Page 1 of 5Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24466 Filed:06/07/23 Entered:06/08/23 12:46:48 Desc: MainDocument Page 2 of 5Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24466 Filed:06/07/23 Entered:06/08/23 12:46:48 Desc: MainDocument Page 3 of 5Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24466 Filed:06/07/23 Entered:06/08/23 12:46:48 Desc: MainDocument Page 4 of 5Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24466 Filed:06/07/23 Entered:06/08/23 12:46:48 Desc: MainDocument Page 5 of 5
#### § 13.31 Applicability.

This subpart applies to proceedings in which a hearing has been requested in accordance with § 13.20 or § 13.75. Hearings under this subpart are considered informal and are provided through the Office of Adjudication.
§ 161.407 Notice of reevaluation. ( a ) After receiving an FAA determination that a reevaluation is justified, an aircraft operator desiring continuation of the reevaluation process shall publish a notice of request for reevaluation in an areawide newspaper or newspapers that either singly or together has general circulation throughout the airport noise study area (or the airport vicinity for agreements where an airport noise study area has not been delineated); post a notice in the airport in a prominent location accessible to airport users and the public; and directly notify in writing the following parties: ( 1 ) The airport operator, other aircraft operators providing scheduled passenger or cargo service at the airport, operators of aircraft based at the airport, potential new entrants that are known to be interested in serving the airport, and aircraft operators known to be routinely providing nonscheduled service;
( 2 ) The Federal Aviation Administration;
( 3 ) Each Federal, State, and local agency with land-use control jurisdiction within the airport noise study area (or the airport vicinity for agreements where an airport noise study area has not been delineated);
( 4 ) Fixed-base operators and other airport tenants whose operations may be affected by the agreement or the restriction;
( 5 ) Community groups and business organizations that are known to be interested in the restriction; and
( 6 ) Any other party that commented on the original restriction.
( b ) Each notice provided in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section shall include: ( 1 ) The name of the airport and associated cities and states;
( 2 ) A clear, concise description of the restriction, including whether the restriction was approved by the FAA or agreed to by the airport operator and aircraft operators, and the date of the approval or agreement;
( 3 ) The name of the aircraft operator requesting a reevaluation, and a statement that a reevaluation has been requested and that the FAA has determined that a reevaluation is justified;
( 4 ) A brief discussion of the reasons why a reevaluation is justified;
( 5 ) An analysis prepared in accordance with § 161.409 of this part supporting the aircraft operator's reevaluation request, or an announcement of where the analysis is available for public inspection;
( 6 ) An invitation to comment on the analysis supporting the proposed reevaluation, with a minimum 45-day comment period;
( 7 ) Information on how to request a copy of the analysis (if not in the notice); and
( 8 ) The address for submitting comments to the aircraft operator, including identification of a contact person.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund II (the Registrant) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive
Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III
|Leo F. Wells, III       
|Chief Executive Officer 
|August 12, 2005         



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS
|Douglas P. Williams       
|Chief Financial Officer   
|August 12, 2005
§ 1214.1104 Evaluation and ranking of highly qualified candidates. ( a ) A selection board consisting of discipline experts, and such other persons as appropriate, will further evaluate and rank the “Highly Qualified” applicants.
( b ) Efforts will be made to assure that minorities and females are included on this board.
( c ) The “Highly Qualified” applicants who are determined to be the “Best Qualified” will be invited to the Johnson Space Center for an interview, orientation, and detailed medical evaluation.
( d ) Background investigations will normally be initiated on those applicants rated “Best Qualified.”
[54 FR 37940, Sept. 14, 1989, as amended at 68 FR 19948, Apr. 23, 2003]