alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 221
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 221 appear at 84 FR 15929, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 221.108 Transmission of tariff filings to subscribers. ( a ) Each carrier required to file tariffs in accordance with this part shall make available to any person so requesting a subscription service as described in paragraph (b) of this section for its passenger tariffs issued by it or by a publishing agent on its behalf.
( b ) Under the required subscription service one copy of each new tariff publication, including the justification required by § 221.94, must be transmitted to each subscriber thereto by first-class mail (or other equivalent means agreed upon by the subscriber) not later than one day following the time the copies for official filing are transmitted to the Department. The subscription service described in this section shall not preclude the offering of additional types of subscription services by carriers or their agents.
( c ) The carriers or their publishing agents at their option may establish a charge for providing the required subscription service to subscribers: Provided, That the charge may not exceed a reasonable estimate of the added cost of providing the service.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.3
                                 LOAN AGREEMENT

This Agreement is made by and between Kid Castle Internet Technology Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as "Lender") and WANG, KUO-AN of Global International
Education Investment Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "Borrower") with the
guarantor(s), for the necessary fund lending during the process of business
dealings performed by both parties. The Agreement is established under mutual
agreement, with the terms and conditions specified as follows:

Amount of Loan: TEN MILLION New Taiwan Dollars.

Valid Loan Period: From November 1, 2000 to October 31, 2003. The loan will be
issued upon approval of the certificate of indebtedness or notes presented by
the Borrower.

11.  The loan interest will be calculated according to the actual loan amount
     and a fixed interest rate for the period. The annual interest rate is 6%.

12.  Upon the due date for each loan taken, the Borrower and the guarantor(s)
     must pay off the loan immediately. Under conditions of an overdue, the
     interest for the entire loan amount will be re-calculated according to the
     overdue interest rate, an annual interest rate of 10%.

13.  For all debts incurred under the Agreement, the Borrower and the
     guarantor(s) both agree to accept the obligation for loan payment. The
     obligation cannot be advocated for exemption with the supply of application
     documents, certificate of indebtedness, notes or any other documentation
     not signed or sealed by the guarantor(s).

14.  The interest accountable with the certificate of indebtedness should be
     paid in lump sum with the payment for the principal.

15.  Upon the involvement of this Agreement in a lawsuit, the Borrower and the
     Guarantors agrees to use the court at the location of the Lender as the
     court of first instance.

Lender   : Kid Castle Internet Technology Corporation (sealed)
Address  : 8th Floor, No. 98, Mingchuan Road, Hsintien City, Taipei

Borrower : For and on behalf of (sealed)
           Global International Education Investment Ltd.
           WANG, KUO - AN [(authorized Signature)]

Date: November 1, 2000
NO. 12-19-00056-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JOSHUA SCALES, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Joshua Scales, filed a pro se motion to dismiss this appeal. No decision has 

been delivered in this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the 

appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

Opinion delivered March 20, 2019.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 20, 2019

NO. 12-19-00056-CR

JOSHUA SCALES,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0630-17)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss 

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and 

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and 

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
#### STATE ex rel. COMMISSIONERS OF THE LAND OFFICE v. KEEN, Dist. Judge.

*No.*29752.

April 30, 1940.

*102 P. 2d 143.*

*180Tom Huser and Campbell Hippen, both of Oklahoma City, for relator.

DANNER, J.

This is an original action in mandamus by the state on relation of the Commissioners of the Land Office against W. P. Keen, district judge of the Twelfth judicial district, to compel the respondent to enter orders confirming sales of real estate made by the sheriffs of Dewey and Washita counties in six different mortgage foreclosure cases and directing said sheriffs to execute deeds pursuant to the sales. Respondent, having been served with copies of the pleadings and the brief, as well as with an alternative writ which was heretofore issued herein, is sufficiently notified as to the numbers and names of the actions, so that same need not be repeated.

As to each of said cases, the same fact and legal situations exist in substance as were present in State ex rel. Commissioners of Land Office v. District Court of Custer County, 185 Okla. 597, 95 P. 2d 851, and Fisher v. Keen, District Judge, 187 Okla. 5, 100 P. 2d 859. The law of those cases is adopted as the ruling and syllabus hereof.

The writ is granted and the respondent is ordered to confirm the sales and cause execution of deeds by the sheriffs in conformance with the said sales. It is further ordered that the costs of this proceeding be taxed against the respondent personally, and that the respondent pay said costs.

BAYLESS, C. J., WELCH, V. C. J., and RILEY, OSBORN, HURST, and DAVISON, JJ., concur. CORN and GIBSON, JJ., absent.
#### §§ 415.204-415.400 [Reserved]
§ 29.1413 Safety belts: passenger warning device. ( a ) If there are means to indicate to the passengers when safety belts should be fastened, they must be installed to be operated from either pilot seat.
( b ) Each safety belt must be equipped with a metal to metal latching device.
(Secs. 313, 314, and 601 through 610 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1354, 1355, and 1421 through 1430) and sec. 6(c), Dept. of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)))
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-16 43 FR 46233, Oct. 5, 1978]
§ 27.653 Pressure venting and drainage of rotor blades. ( a ) For each rotor blade— ( 1 ) There must be means for venting the internal pressure of the blade;
( 2 ) Drainage holes must be provided for the blade; and
( 3 ) The blade must be designed to prevent water from becoming trapped in it.
( b ) Paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section does not apply to sealed rotor blades capable of withstanding the maximum pressure differentials expected in service.
[Amdt. 27-2, 33 FR 963, Jan. 26, 1968]
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24895-2 Filed:08/14/23 Entered:08/15/23 18

Envelope Page 1 of 1
#### CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. v DIXIE CONCRETE SERVICE, INC., et al.

Case No. 88-16722-CA

Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County

December 19, 1990

OPINION OF THE COURT

VIRGINIA Q. BEVERLY, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT*

This cause came on for hearing on the Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count I of the Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint. Based upon the record and arguments of counsel, this Court concludes that the Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment shall be granted. In ruling on the Plaintiffs Motion, a brief history of the case is appropriate.

On November 7, 1985, a CSX employee (Willie Blair) was injured *168while riding in a truck which was owned and operated by Dixie Concrete Service (Dixie). At the time of this accident, Dixie and CSX had an indemnity agreement whereby Dixie had agreed to indemnify CSX for damages arising out of such an incident.

When the CSX employee made a claim against CSX for his injuries, Dixie was notified by CSX and invited to participate in the defense of this claim. However, after reasonable notice, Dixie chose not to participate in the defense of the employee’s claim (This fact was conceded by defense counsel). Subsequently, CSX settled with its employee and now seeks a Partial Summary Judgment on its indemnity claim against Dixie.

Based on these facts, *Post Houses, Inc. v Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company,*469 So.2d 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), is controlling. In *Post Houses,*the First District Court of Appeal held that where an indemnitor is given notice of a suit against its indemnitee and has been given a reasonable opportunity to investigate and defend this claim, a settlement paid by the indemnitee is conclusive against the indemnitor if it is made without fraud or collusion.

Additionally, this Court finds that Paragraph 32 of the parties’ written agreement is controlling. Pursuant to Paragraph 32 of the parties’ contract, Dixie assumed all responsibility and liability for Mr. Blair’s damages.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. That the Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted with the Court reserving jurisdiction to determine damages upon proper motion by the Plaintiff.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, this 19th day of December, 1990.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                                                        Brightman Almagor
                                                        1 Azrieli Center
                                                        Tel Aviv 67021
                                                        P.O.B. 16593
                                                        Tel Aviv 61164
                                                        Israel

                                                        Tel: +972 (3) 608 5555
                                                        Fax: +972 (3) 609 4022
                                                        info@deloitte.co.il
                                                        www.deloitte.co.il

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-130168) of InkSure Technologies Inc. (the
"Company"), our report, dated March 21, 2007, relating to our audit of the
financial statements of the Company as of December 31, 2006 and for the year
ended December 31, 2006 contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.


/s/ Brightman Almagor & Co.
Brightman Almagor & Co.
Certified Public Accountants,
A member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Tel Aviv, Israel
March 21, 2007
DEBTORS AND CREDITORS.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

1898.]

Marvin, Caldwell and Douglass, JJ. (Sitting in First Circuit.)

#### Ryan v. Miami Railway Co.

Creditor Omitted from Compromise not Entitled to Difference Between Amount Paid and Stockholders Actual Liability.

A creditor omitted from a compromise settlement between creditors and stockholders of a corporation, under the latters statutory liability, is only entitled the *pro rata,*share which he would have received had there been no compensation.

In this old case the stock holders entered into an agreement with all the creditors save one, whereby they paid a certain amount to the creditors in full satisfaction of the claim against them on account of their statutory liability. Subsequently the one creditor who was not made a party to the agreement, a Mr. Ferris, came in and demanded payment of his claim in full, on the theory that the stockholders were liable to him to the full amount of their holdings, and that the difference between the amount which they had paid in settlement with the other creditors and the full amount of their liability would be more than sufficient to pay him in full.

*Gorman & Thompson,*for plaintiff.

*Paxton, Warrington & Boutet, contra.*

Caldwell, J.,

in an oral opinion, held that Ferris is only entitled to the amount which he would have received had there been no composition between the stockholders and the other creditors, and the stock had been assessed to the full amount, and each creditor had received his *pro rata*share, it being conceded that the stock would not have yielded enough to have paid the creditors in full.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4296 

To provide the Administrator of the Drug-Free Communities Support Program the authority to waive the Federal fund limitation for the DrugFree Communities Support Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2020 

Mr. PORTMAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide the Administrator of the Drug-Free Communities 

Support Program the authority to waive the Federal 

fund limitation for the Drug-Free Communities Support 

Program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Drug-Free Commu5 nities Pandemic Relief Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4296 IS

1 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF FEDERAL FUND LIMITATION FOR THE 

2 DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PRO3 GRAM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), if the 

5 Administrator of the Drug-Free Communities Support 

6 Program determines that, as a result of the public health 

7 emergency declared pursuant to section 319 of the Public 

8 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) as a result of 

9 COVID–19, an eligible coalition is unable to raise the 

10 amount of non-Federal funds, including in-kind contribu11 tions, agreed to be raised by the coalition for a fiscal year 

12 under an agreement entered into with the Administrator 

13 pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) or (3)(D) of section 1032(b) 

14 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1532(b)), 

15 the Administrator may, notwithstanding such paragraphs, 

16 provide to the eligible coalition the grant or renewal grant, 

17 as applicable, for that fiscal year in an amount— 

18 (1) with respect to an initial grant or renewal 

19 grant described under paragraph (1)(A) of such sec20 tion, that exceeds the amount of non-Federal funds 

21 raised by the eligible coalition, including in-kind con22 tributions, for that fiscal year; 

23 (2) with respect to a renewal grant described 

24 under paragraph (3)(D)(i) of such section, that ex25 ceeds 125 percent of the amount of non-Federal 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4296 IS

1 funds raised by the eligible coalition, including in2 kind contributions, for that fiscal year; and 

3 (3) with respect to a renewal grant described 

4 under paragraph (3)(D)(ii) of such section, that ex5 ceeds 150 percent of the amount of non-Federal 

6 funds raised by the eligible coalition, including in7 kind contributions, for that fiscal year. 

8 (b) LIMITATIONS.—The Administrator may not pro9 vide a grant or renewal grant to an eligible coalition in 

10 an amount exceeding the amount of funds initially agreed 

11 to be provided by the Administrator under the applicable 

12 agreement. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Gibbons , J.

, J. conclusively establishes Christopherson's conviction of serious crimes warranting a temporary suspension. 2 

### See SCR 111(1), (6), (7). Accordingly, we temporarily suspend Christopherson from the practice of law and refer this matter to the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board for the initiation of formal disciplinary proceedings in which the sole issue to be determined is the extent of discipline to be imposed. 

### See SCR 111(8).

It is so ORDERED.

Douglas

Saitta , J.

cc: Glenn M. Machado, Assistant Bar Counsel Jeffrey R. Albregts, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada Ian Christopherson Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court

2 Christopherson has filed a letter indicating that he does not oppose a temporary suspension "pending resolution of [his] appeal." The letter also appears to briefly address the merits of Christopherson's federal appeal and express difficulties he is having addressing his legal matters from prison. To the extent that Christopherson's letter requests any relief related to his federal appeal or his incarceration, we note that this proceeding is not the appropriate forum to address such concerns, and we will take no further action with respect to the letter filed on June 5, 2013.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A a i' IMMN/BWMIfflitkAlrvf,Mt. g?1M
#### In the Matter of TPK Construction Co., Petitioner, v James T. Dillon, as Acting Labor Commissioner of State of New York, Respondent.

[700 NYS2d 672]

—Order and determination of respondent Department of Labor, dated February 2, 1998, which, *inter alia,*confirmed a report and recommendation of a Hearing Officer, determined that petitioner TPK Construction Co. had failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements as required by Labor Law § 220 (3), determined that there had been an underpayment in the amount of $211,730.14, and determined that interest in the amount of 16% should be imposed on the amount of the underpayment, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, the order and determination annulled and the petition, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 and Labor Law § 220 (8) and § 220-b (2) (e), granted to the extent of vacating that part of the award which found that $211,730.14 was underpaid and finding instead that $207,475.06 was underpaid, and otherwise confirmed, without costs.

There was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that petitioner TPK had failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements as required by Labor Law § 220 (3). Moreover, petitioner concededly violated its obligation to register its apprentice workers. The methodology employed by the investigator, albeit imperfect, was necessitated by the absence of comprehensive payroll records from TPK *(see, Matter of Alphonse Hotel Corp. v Sweeney,*251 AD2d 169). Nevertheless, inasmuch as the employee from the payroll department testified that the retroactive payment of $4,255.08 was for work performed on the Van Wyck project, and there was no evidence to the contrary, credit in that amount should have been awarded to TPK for that payment against the sums it had been found to have underpaid. Finally, we find no merit to TPK’s challenge to the imposition of interest on moneys withheld from payments due it pending the final determination of the complaint of unpaid wages *(see, Matter of Gelco Bldrs. v*
      *83
      *Holtzman,*168 AD2d 232, 233, *lv denied*77 NY2d 810; Labor Law § 220-b [2] [a], [b]).

Reargument granted and, upon reargument, the unpublished decision and order of this Court entered on May 27, 1999 (Appeal No. 1270) recalled and vacated, and new decision and order substituted therefor. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.
#### Clayton J. Foster et al. *vs.*Charles E. Morris.

First Judicial District, Hartford,

January Term, 1917.

Prentice, C. J., Thayer, Roraback, Wheeler and Beach, Js.

A general finding, in the judgment, of the issues in favor of the plaintiff, means that all of the issues are thus found; and therefore, in the present case, that all of the materials described in the bill of particulars were furnished, and that all of the services alleged to have been rendered were performed in a workmanlike manner.

Such a judgment will not be reversed as erroneous, merely because the special finding of facts, made for the purposes of appeal, is not as comprehensive in its character as the general finding recited in the judgment-file.

Argued January 4th—

decided February 21st, 1917.

Action for work and labor and material- furnished, brought to and tried by the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County, *Smith, J.;*facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $298, and appeal by the defendant.

*No error.*

*Harry M. Burke,*for the appellant (defendant).

*William M. Maltbie,*with whom was *George E. Taft,*for the appellees (plaintiffs).

*379Per Curiam.

The defendant, in the court below, plead in abatement because there was a defective service of the writ. A demurrer to this plea was sustained. The defendant thereupon interposed an answer which in substance averred that all of the materials described in the bill of particulars were not furnished; that all of the services alleged to have been performed were not rendered; and that the work done was not performed in a workmanlike manner. The plaintiffs in their reply denied the truth of the matter contained in the defendant’s answer. The court, as appears from the judgment-file, found all of the issues for the plaintiffs.

The appeal now before us questions the action of the court below in sustaining the demurrer to the plea in abatement, and in holding, from the facts found, that the work was performed in a workmanlike manner and that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover for the full amount of their claim. The assignment of error relating to the plea in abatement is not pursued in this court.

The judgment, by finding the issues for the plaintiffs, necessarily found that all of the materials described in the bill of particulars were furnished and that all of the services alleged to have been rendered were performed in a workmanlike manner. Practice Book (1908) p. 258, §197.

The special finding of facts, although not so comprehensive as the finding of all the issues for the plaintiffs, contains nothing which is inconsistent therewith. The defendant does not claim that these conclusions of fact were not fully justified by the evidence. This being so, it follows that the conclusions of the trial court must stand. It also follows that the judgment complained of was the only one which would have been properly rendered.

There is no error.