alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael J. BERTANZETTI, Appellant, v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation.

No. 13171.

.United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued May 12, 1960.

Decided May 17, 1960.

Hymen Schlesinger, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

Bruce R. Martin, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Pringle, Bredin & Martin, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and STALEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Although the plaintiff in this case has recovered a judgment in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, he appeals alleging error by the trial court in the rejection of two hospital reports. We do not deem it necessary in this case to go into a discussion of admissibility of hospital reports in evidence. That has been done by this Court before and doubtless will be up again. The rejection of one of the reports by the trial judge was because the physician who examined the plaintiff was a witness at the trial and had been examined and cross-examined by counsel for the respective parties. The report, the trial judge thought, could add nothing to what had already been brought out by the physician’s testimony.

The second report had to do with outpatient treatment of the plaintiff at a hospital long after the surgeon who had treated him at the time of the accident had ceased to have anything to do with the plaintiff’s case. The report was, therefore, irrelevant in the view of the trial judge.

 We see no basis for overruling the exercise of discretion made by the trial court in this case. The judgment will be affirmed.

The motion by the appellant to strike certain portions of the appellee’s brief is denied.
#### [578] Anon.

Service of papers is not good, by putting them under the door and pushing them into the office of the attorney to whom they are directed.

The attorney to whom the papers are addressed is entitled to costs for appearing and objecting to the service ; but if the motion be denied on such objection, he cannot charge for any papers prepared in opposition.

This was a motion for re-taxation of costs. It was objected that, the affidavit and notice of motion had not been duly served. It appeared that service was made by putting the papers under the door and pushing them into the attorney’s office, no person being therein, and the same being shut and locked.

*By the Court,*

Bronson, J.

The service was not sufficient. The 11th rule of this court authorizing papers to be left in some suitable and conspicuous place in the office clearly contemplates a case where the office is onen. When the office is left in such a condition that third persons can enter, it may reasonably be presumed that the owner is only absent for a short period, and that papers left on his desk or table will come to his hands on the same day. But when the office is shut and locked, there is no foundation for such a presumption, and the service should be made at his residence. It is enough, however, that the rule is explicit “ if the office be not open so as to admit of service therein,” then service is to be made at the attorney’s residence.

[579] The attorney must have the costs of appearing to make the objection. There was formerly some doubt about the practice on this *point;*but it is now settled, that iha party is entitled to costs where he appears and objects that the notice was insufficient. Although the court will not suffer a rule to be taken by default without proof of service of the papers, defects and insufficiencies may sometimes pass unobserved, if the party do not appear to make the suggestion; and this lays the foundation for a second motion to correct the error. (9 *Wendell,*450.) As the defect here appears on the papers of the party moving, and is not waived, he should only be charged with the costs of appearing, and not with any papers which may have been prepared in opposition to the motion.

Motion denied, with costs as above.
#### George J. Kress, Appellant, *v.*Central Trust Company, Respondent.

(Argued October 20, 1936;

decided November 24, 1936.)

*630
      *Edward C. Edelman*for appellant.

*Howard M. Woods*and *Nelson Warner*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch. JJ.
#### Isaac Booker T. Washington JONES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 18210.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

May 31, 1960.

G. W. Gill, New Orleans, La., for appellant.

Prim B. Smith, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, JONES and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.

*842PER CURIAM.

The appellant was charged in a bill of information with nine counts relating to the violation of the Harrison Narcotic Act, 26 U.S.C.A. § 4701 et seq. and the Narcotic Import Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 171 et seq.

Count 1 alleged the purchase of thirteen capsules of heroin on April 15,1959. Count 2 alleged the sale of the same capsules on the same day. Count 3 alleged the concealment of them on the same date.

Count 4 alleged the purchase of seventeen capsules of heroin on April 20, 1959. Count 5 alleged the sale of the same capsules on the same date, and Count 6 alleged the concealment on the same date.

Count 7 alleged the purchase of nine capsules of heroin on May 8, 1959. Count 8 alleged the sale of the same capsules on the same date, and Count 9 alleged their concealment on the same date.

The Court directed a verdict of acquittal as to all counts except the sale counts, 2, 5, and 8. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty as to Count 2 and guilty as to Counts 5 and 8.

Appealing from the judgment and sentence on these two counts, defendant is here insisting that it was error to deny his motion for a directed verdict because, as to Count 5, the evidence was insufficient to justify its submission to the jury, and, as to Count 8, the evidence established as matter of láw that defendant was entrapped into committing the offense. In further support of his claim of error as to Count 5, appellant insists that, since the jury found him not guilty as to Count 2, a verdict of guilty on Count 5 on substantially the same facts was completely inconsistent.

We are unable to agree with these views. On the contrary we think the evidence is ample to support the finding of the jury that defendant was guilty of the offenses charged in Count 5, and that there is nothing of substance in his claim of inconsistency in the verdicts on Counts 2 and 5. Of defendant’s contention that, within the teaching of Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413; Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 78 S.Ct. 819, 2 L.Ed.2d 848, and Henderson v. United States, 5 Cir., 261 F.2d 909, he was the victim of entrapment, it is sufficient to say that the evidence in this case does not bring it within the reach of those cases. The cases controlling here are Accardi v. United States, 5 Cir., 257 F.2d 168, Kivette v. United States, 5 Cir., 230 F.2d 749, and Lathem v. United States, 5 Cir., 259 F.2d 393.

We find no error in the judgment. It is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4460 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4460

    To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to waive certain 
eligibility requirements for a veteran to receive per diem payments for 
       domiciliary care at a State home, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 5, 2020

 Ms. Collins (for herself, Mr. King, and Mr. Sullivan) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to waive certain 
eligibility requirements for a veteran to receive per diem payments for 
       domiciliary care at a State home, 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 ``State Veterans Homes Domiciliary 
Care Flexibility Act''.

SEC. 2. WAIVER OF REQUIREMENTS OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FOR 
              RECEIPT OF PER DIEM PAYMENTS FOR DOMICILIARY CARE AT 
              STATE HOMES AND MODIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR SUCH 
              PAYMENTS.

    (a) Waiver of Requirements.--Notwithstanding section 1741 of title 
38, United States Code (as amended by subsection (b)), the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs shall modify section 51.51(b) of title 38, Code of 
Federal Regulations (or successor regulations), to provide the 
Secretary the authority to waive the requirements under such section 
51.51(b) for a veteran to be eligible for per diem payments for 
domiciliary care at a State home if--
            (1) the veteran has met not fewer than four of the 
        requirements set forth in such section; or
            (2) such waiver would be in the best interest of the 
        veteran.
    (b) Modification of Eligibility.--Section 1741(a)(1) of title 38, 
United States Code, is amended, in the flush text following 
subparagraph (B), by striking ``in a Department facility'' and 
inserting ``under the laws administered by the Secretary''.
    (c) State Home Defined.--In this section, the term ``State home'' 
has the meaning given that term in section 101(19) of title 38, United 
States Code.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 24.4


                              KEYSPAN CORPORATION

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY



     WHEREAS,  KeySpan  Corporation,  a New York  corporation  (the  "Company"),
intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an Annual Report on Form 10-K as prescribed by
said Commission  pursuant to said Act and the rules and regulations  promulgated
thereunder.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  in my capacity as a director of the Company,  I do hereby
appoint GERALD LUTERMAN, JOHN J. BISHAR, JR. and MICHAEL J. TAUNTON, and each of
them  severally,  as my  attorneys-in-fact  with power to execute in my name and
place, and in my capacity as a director of KeySpan Corporation, said Report, any
amendment  to said  Report  and  any  other  documents  required  in  connection
therewith, and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this power of attorney this 22nd day of
February, 2006.





                                                     /s/James R. Jones
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

08/02

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 02 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL
J;~ ~eechcraft 

All Models 

In Reply Refer to: 940-2012-00567 

March 6, 20 12 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Docket Operations 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room Wl2-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Hawker Beechcraft Corporation 

10511 E. Central Avenue 

Wichita, Kansas 

67206 USA 

Subject: Petition for an Exemption from Requirements of 14 CFR 47.69 (b) Permitting Restricted 

Use of Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificates Outside of the United States 

Reference: 

Dear Sir: 

1.) Raytheon Aircraft Company Exemptions 6758, 7241, 7241 A 

2.) Beech Aircraft Corporation Exemptions 5125, 5125A, 5125B, 5125C 

3.) Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Exemption 9510 

In accordance with 14 CFR Part I 1.63, Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (HBC) requests an exemption from 

the requirements of 14 CFR 47.69 (b), which states: "A Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate is valid 

only in connection with use of aircraft - (b) Within the United States, except when used to deliver to a 

foreign purchaser an aircraft displaying a temporary registration number and carrying an airworthiness 

certificate on which that number is written;" 

Hawker Beechcraft Corporation has been issued such exemptions in the past, as listed in Reference I, 2, 

and 3. The exemption HBC is now requesting is similar in nature, applicability, and scope to these past 

exemptions, as well as exemptions granted to other members of the general aviation industry. 

The granting of this request will not adversely affect safety, and will allow Hawker Beech craft Corporation 

to use Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificates outside the United States for flight testing, sales 

demonstrations, and marketing of Hawker Beechcraft Corporation products. Additionally, the public 

interest will be served by increasing international awareness of U.S. general aviation products and 

technology. Resulting foreign aircraft sales will help improve the U.S. balance of trade. 

Hawker Beechcraft Corporation was issued Dealer's Registration Certificate Number D002889. 

Hawker Beechcraft Corporation agrees to abide by reasonable and customary conditions and limitations 

imposed by the granting of this request. Such limitations and conditions imposed in past exemptions 

included: 

I. Hawker Beechcraft Corporation must own the aircraft; 

2. The aircraft must have temporary registration number or an assigned registration number affixed as 

provided in 14 CFR patt 45; 
Letter 940-2012-00567 

Page 2 of2 

3. Hawker Beechcraft Corporation must keep records of each international flight for one year after the 

aircraft returns to the United States. Such records must contain the following information: 

a. Registration number and Manufacture's serial number; 

b. Dates of departure and return to the United States, and 

c. General overseas itinerary. 

4. A copy of the exemption must be carried in each aircraft operated outside the United States under 

the privileges of the exemption. 

Sincerely, 

HAWKER BEECHCRAFT CORPORATION 

Randolph Shields, Director 

Safety and Certification 

RS/Iab
**Exhibit 21.1**

 
| **Subsidiary**                                         | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of  Incorporation** | ** ** |
|--------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------|------------|
|                                                   |       |                               |       |
| Aldila Golf Corp.                                      |       | Delaware,  U.S.                    |       |
|                                                   |       |                               |       |
| Aldila Materials Technology Corp.                      |       | Delaware,  U.S.                    |       |
|                                                   |       |                               |       |
| Aldila de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                         |       | Mexico                             |       |
|                                                   |       |                               |       |
| Aldila Carbon Fiber Products (Zhuhai) Company  Limited |       | People’s  Republic of China   |       |

 

----
```

[114th Congress Public Law 96]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 129 STAT. 2193]]

Public Law 114-96
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
      Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2016 <<NOTE: Dec. 11, 
                         2015 -  [H.R. 2250]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,  <<NOTE: Further 
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2016.>> That the Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-53) <<NOTE: Ante, p. 506.>> is 
amended by striking the date specified in section 106(3) and inserting 
``December 16, 2015''.

     This Act may be cited as the ``Further Continuing Appropriations 
Act, 2016''.

    Approved December 11, 2015.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2250:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 114-110 (Comm. on Appropriations).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 114-64 (Comm. on Appropriations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 161 (2015):
            May 19, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 10, considered and passed Senate, amended.
            Dec. 11, House concurred in Senate amendments.

                                  <all>
```
§ 375.10 Certain foreign civil aircraft registered in ICAO member states. Subject to the observance of the applicable rules, conditions, and limitations set forth in this part: ( a ) Foreign civil aircraft manufactured in a State that at the time of manufacture was a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and registered in a State that at the time of flight is a member of ICAO, may be navigated in the United States;
( b ) Foreign civil aircraft manufactured in a State that at the time of manufacture was not a member of ICAO, and registered in a State that at the time of flight is a member of ICAO, may be navigated in the United States, ( 1 ) If the State of registry has notified ICAO that the requirements under which it issues or renders valid certificates of airworthiness are equal to or above the minimum standards established pursuant to the Chicago Convention, or
( 2 ) If such notification has not been made to ICAO at the time of flight, there is on file with the Department a statement by the State of registry that, with regard to aircraft of the type that is proposed to be operated hereunder, the requirements under which certificates of airworthiness are issued or rendered valid are equal to or above the minimum standards established pursuant to the Chicago Convention.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND BALANCE SHEET AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       4,525,682
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  743,504
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    153,093
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,322,844
<PP&E>                                         122,115
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,542,738
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,123,328
<BONDS>                                      9,395,865
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,723
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,978,178)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               (7,542,738)
<SALES>                                        733,212
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               733,212
<CGS>                                          145,578
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,943,223
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               446,975
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,802,564)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,802,564)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,802,564)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Town of Oyster Bay, Appellant, *v.*Robert Moses et al., Respondents.

Argued March 9, 1937;

decided March 23, 1937.

*633
      *Eugene R. Hurley*and *Charles I. Wood*for appellant.

*G. Frank Dougherty, Ruth I. Wilson*and *Raymond P. McNulty*for respondents.

*James B. Alley, Max O’Rell Truitt*and *William Radner*for Reconstruction Finance Corporation, *amicus curiæ.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 89 (Monday, May 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 26644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11387]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Meeting of the ACRS 
Subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment; Notice 
of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk 
Assessment will hold a meeting on May 19, 2000, Room T-2B3, 11545 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

Friday, May 19, 2000--8:30 a.m. Until the Conclusion of Business

    The Subcommittee will discuss the status of risk-informed revisions 
to 10 CFR Part 50 (Option 3), including proposed revision to 10 CFR 
50.44 concerning combustible gas control systems and issues in the 
Nuclear Energy Institute letter dated January 19, 2000. The 
Subcommittee will also discuss the public comments related to the 
Option 2 Advance Notice of Public Rulemaking. The purpose of this 
meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, 
and to formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for 
deliberation by the full Committee.
    Oral statements may be presented by members of the public with the 
concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairman; written statements will be 
accepted and made available to the Committee. Electronic recordings 
will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are 
open to the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the 
Subcommittee, its consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral 
statements should notify the cognizant ACRS staff engineer named below 
five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made.
    During the initial portion of the meeting, the Subcommittee, along 
with any of its consultants who may be present, may exchange 
preliminary views regarding matters to be considered during the balance 
of the meeting.
    The Subcommittee will then hear presentations by and hold 
discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, its consultants, and 
other interested persons regarding this review.
    Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the 
meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the Chairman's ruling on 
requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time 
allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACRS 
staff engineer, Mr. Michael T. Markley (telephone 301/415-6885) between 
7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EDT). Persons planning to attend this meeting 
are urged to contact the above named individual one or two working days 
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the 
agenda, etc., that may have occurred.

    Dated: May 5, 2000.
Howard J. Larson,
Acting Associate Director for Technical Support, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. 00-11387 Filed 5-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P