alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COMMON CARRIERS.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

January, 1893.]

Swing, Smith and Cox, JJ.

#### L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Levi & Ottenheimer.

Liability for Goods Shipped at a Reduced Rate.

A common carrier receiving goods for transportation, at a value lower than their actual value, and in consequence thereof, ships the same at a reduced rate, such carrier remains liable for the full value of the goods, there being no agreement of contract in the bill of lading as to any limitation on account of loss or damage, by reason of any reduction ol freight.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.

Swing, J.

“ We think that the judgment should be affirmed. Plaintiff’s actio» was for the loss of a barrel of whiskey valued at $78, which was alleged! to have been received by the defendant below as a common carrier to be carried from McKenzie, Tenn., to Cincinnati, O., and while in the possession of the defendant was lost. The defendant admitted having received the barrel of whiskey, and the loss thereof, but say they received! it as of the value of seventy-five cents a gallon, or $28.86 for the barrel;; that it was shipped under a reduced rate of twenty-five cents per hundred pounds; that whiskey of greater value was to pay forty cents per hundred pounds; and defendant admitted liability for the said amount of $28.36, which it was willing at all times to pay plaintiffs.

‘‘ ‘We think the defendant has failed in its proof to sustain the allegation of its answer. The bill of lading, or contract of carriage, does not support the defense set up. No rate is given. The value is placed at seventy-five-' cents a gallon, but there is no agreement of contract as to any limitation on account of loss or damage, by reason of any reduction of freight. Ik is a mere statement as to value, and no reason is given why it was. placed on the contract or bill of lading; so in our opinion it is not necessary for us to pass on the question, which was argued before us, at length, viz., whether a contract of a common carrier limiting its liability would be sustained, when the loss was occasioned by its own negligence, as there was no such contract here.

“ Furthermore, the judgment should be sustained as far as such . alleged errors that occurred were brought up on the motion for a new trial, as the bill of exceptions does not bring up all of the evidence. It *374is true that it purports to do so, but an examination of the bill discloses the fact that quite a lot of matter introduced as evidence was not brought into the bill or made part of the record. We find no errors of the court in the admission or exclusion of evidence.

*Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith &*Hoadly, for plaintiff in error.

*Yaple, Moss & McCabe,*for Levi and Ottenheimer.

The judgment will therefore be affirmed.
#### GERTRUDE VANDERBILT WHITNEY ET AL *v.*UNITED STATES

*[Ante, p.*480;

293 U.S. 584]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court October 8, 1934.
#### § 271.2 Definitions.

As used in this part:

*Eligible place* means a place in the United States that meets the specified criteria outlined in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 417.

*Essential air service* is that air transportation which the Department has found to be essential under Subchapter II of Chapter 417 of the Statute.

[60 FR 43524, Aug. 22, 1995, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15933, Apr. 16, 2019]
Grant of Extension of Time

 PAGE 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0414

IN THE MATTER OF 

S.S.,

A Youth in Need of Care.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing therefore, Appellant, S.S., is granted an extension of 

time until December 31, 2021 to prepare, serve, and file the Opening Brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 12 2021

11/12/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0414
#### ELLIS v. FORD.

(Decided February 4th, 1915.)

Appeal from Madison Probate Court.

Heard before Hon. W. T. Lawler.

No counsel marked for appellant. Betts & Betts, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Affirmed on certificate.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3769

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 137 East Young High Pike

in Knoxville, Tennessee, as the ‘‘Ben AtchleyPost Office Building’’.

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3769

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 137 East Young High Pike in Knoxville, Tennessee, as the ‘‘Ben Atchley Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3769 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 137 East Young High Pike in Knoxville, Ten4 nessee, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Ben

5 Atchley Post Office Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘Ben Atchley Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives March 2,

2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### STATE EX REL. ELIM P. FLOREN v. DISPLAYOGRAPH COMPANY AND OTHERS.1

December 22, 1916.

Nos. 19,971—(110).

Corporation — inspection of records by stockholder.

Appeal from order sustaining alternative writ of *mandamus*to permit inspection of records of corporation by a stockholder and officer who wished to prepare his defense to a charge of embezzling its funds. Application opposed because relator had been indicted upon that charge by the grand jury. *Held,*Relator had a right of inspection under G-. S. 1913, § 6183. [Reporter.]

Upon the relation of Elim P. Ploren the district court for Hennepin county granted its alternative writ of *mandamus*directing the Displayograph Company and others to allow relator and his attorneys opportunity to inspect all the records of that corporation and to take copies of such portions as they desired. The respondents made answer and the matter was heard' before Hale, J., who made the alternative writ peremptory. Prom the order allowing relator and his attorneys the right of inspection, respondents appealed.

Affirmed.

*Booth & McDonald,*for relator.

*E. S. Cary,*for respondents.

1

Reported in 160 N. W. 486.

Per Curiam.

On. the petition of relator the court below issued an alternative writ of *mandamus*commanding defendants to permit relator and his attorneys the right and opportunity to inspect the records of the defendant corporation, and to take copies of such portions thereof as they might desire. The petition set forth that relator was the owner of a majority of the stock of the corporation, and the president thereof; that March 20, 1916, defendant Drennan and one Blake forcibly took from relator’s possession the corporate books and records, transferred them to the office of defendant Phelps, and that defendants have refused to allow relator to inspect or take copies of any of said records. The relief asked is necessary to enable relator to prepare his defense on the trial of an indictment charging him with embezzlement of funds of the corporation. The answer was wholly devoted to statements of *480alleged criminal acts of relator as president of the corporation, as indicating his guilt of the charge made by the indictment. A reply denied the allegations of the answer. The court below ordered defendants to allow relator and his attorneys before a specified time to inspect and take copies of any and all records, papers and files of the corporation. Defendants appeal from this order.

Defendants contend that relator should have been denied relief because he did not “come into court with clean hands.” We fail to appreciate this argument. Relator had a clear right, -as a stockholder in the corporation, to inspect its books and records. - G. S. 1913, § 6183. This right being denied him by the officers having charge of the books and records, he could enforce it by *mandamus.*G. S. 1913, § 8266. Relator’s hands are not shown to be unclean simply because defendants and the grand jury accuse him of crime. He is presumed innocent until found guilty, is entitled to a trial, and to the evidence in defendants’ possession necessary to make his defense. The appeal is wholly without merit.

Affirmed.
§ 29.55 Takeoff decision point (TDP): Category A. ( a ) The TDP is the first point from which a continued takeoff capability is assured under § 29.59 and is the last point in the takeoff path from which a rejected takeoff is assured within the distance determined under § 29.62.
( b ) The TDP must be established in relation to the takeoff path using no more than two parameters; e.g., airspeed and height, to designate the TDP.
( c ) Determination of the TDP must include the pilot recognition time interval following failure of the critical engine.
[Doc. No. 24802, 61 FR 21899, May 10, 1996]
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)**

**OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Michael Vernon, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of aQuantive, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisquarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting. 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies ormaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 13, 2003
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

AUG 31 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

RICHARD TALLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 99-2100

FURR’S MARKET, INC., and NEW

MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Defendants-Appellees.

(D.C. No. CIV-97-1320-JC)

(D. N.M.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, BALDOCK, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.**

 

Plaintiff Richard Talley appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se

complaint alleging racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 2000(a)

against Defendants Furr’s Market and the New Mexico Department of Labor. We have

thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the district court’s orders, and the entire record
1

 Plaintiff’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a) is allowed.

2

before us. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the district court’s

Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 1, 1999.1

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge
**Exhibit
      32.1** ****





Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
      1350)





I,
      Beaufort J.B. Clarke, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of ICON Capital
      Corp., the General Partner of the Registrant in connection with the Annual
      Report of ICON Income Fund Eight A L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for
      year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual Report") certify, pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





1.  The
      Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m); and





2.  The
      information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Partnership.








*Dated:*  *April
      2, 2007*





*/s/
      Beaufort J.B. Clarke*


Beaufort
      J.B. Clarke


Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer


ICON
      Capital Corp.


General
      Partner of ICON Income Eight A L.P.
### Monazite in part of the southern Atlantic Coastal Plain

By: Lincoln Dryden

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1042L

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 19**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 20**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 21**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 22**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4069 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4069

 To amend the Small Business Act to provide that Major League Baseball 
 franchises will be prohibited from receiving loans under the Paycheck 
Protection Program under certain circumstances, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 25, 2020

  Mr. Daines introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Small Business Act to provide that Major League Baseball 
 franchises will be prohibited from receiving loans under the Paycheck 
Protection Program under certain circumstances, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Support Baseball in Communities 
Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTAIN ASSISTANCE.

    (a) Paycheck Protection Program.--Section 7(a)(36)(D) of the Small 
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(36)(D)) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
                            ``(vii) Limitation for major league 
                        baseball teams.--Notwithstanding any other 
                        provision of this paragraph, if Major League 
                        Baseball reduces the number of Minor League 
                        Baseball teams that are affiliated with a Major 
                        League Baseball team, no Major League Baseball 
                        team shall be eligible to receive a covered 
                        loan.''.
    (b) CARES Act Programs.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
or regulation, if Major League Baseball reduces the number of Minor 
League Baseball teams that are affiliated with a Major League Baseball 
team, no Major League Baseball team shall be eligible to receive 
assistance under any program carried out under--
            (1) title IV of the CARES Act (Public Law 116-136); or
            (2) any of the amendments made by that title.
    (c) Retroactive Effect.--This section, and the amendments made by 
this section, shall take effect as if enacted on the date of enactment 
of the CARES Act (Public Law 116-136).
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM YEAR END
1998 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          22,274
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,912
<ALLOWANCES>                                       740
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,666
<PP&E>                                          38,626
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,326
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,685
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,693
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            38
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,685
<SALES>                                         74,495
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                74,495
<CGS>                                           66,095
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   76,046
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  45
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (464)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       183
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (647)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (647)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)
        

</TABLE>
§ 249.3 Preservation of records. ( a ) All records listed in §§ 249.20 and 249.21 may be preserved on either paper or nonerasable microfilm (see § 249.4). However, a paper or microfilm record need not be created to satisfy the requirements of this part if the record is initially prepared in a machine-readable medium such as punched cards, magnetic tapes, and disks. The records maintained in machine-readable media and the underlying data used in their preparation shall be preserved for the periods prescribed in §§ 249.20 and 249.21. A paper or microfilm record shall not be destroyed after transfer to a machine-readable medium before expiration of the prescribed period: however, a waiver permitting the early destruction of paper or microfilm records transferred to a machine-readable medium may be granted by the Director, Office of Airline Information, when it is demonstrated by the requesting carrier that the substantive purpose of the retention requirement will be met by retention of the information in machine-readable form (see § 249.10).
( b ) Each record kept in a machine-readable medium shall be accompanied by a statement clearly indicating the type of data included in the record and certifying that the information contained in it is complete and accurate. This statement shall be executed by a person having personal knowledge of the facts contained in the records. The records shall be indexed and retained in such a manner so that they are easily accessible, and the carrier shall have the facilities available to locate, identify and reproduce the records in readable form without loss of clarity. Authorized representatives of the DOT shall be given immediate access to the carrier's facilities upon request.
( c ) If any record which must be retained under the provisions of §§ 249.20 and 249.21 is included as an exhibit to another document which must also be retained, the carrier need only keep in its files one copy of the record to satisfy these record retention requirements. In these cases, the carrier shall establish adequate cross-references to assist in locating the record.
( d ) The provisions in this part do not excuse noncompliance with requirements of any other governmental body, Federal or State, prescribing longer retention periods for any records.
[ER-1214, 46 FR 25415, May 6, 1981, as amended at 60 FR 66725, Dec. 26, 1995]