alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### AKINS v COUNTY COMMISSIONERS et

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No 1526.

Decided Feb 26, 1929

C G Roetzel, Akron, for Akins.

Don Isham, Pros Atty, W A Spencer, Asst Pros Atty, A B Underwood, Dir of Law and C B MacDonald, Asst Dir of Law, all of Akron, for Comrs et.

*249PARDEE, J.

Giving to plaintiff’s petition an interpretation most favorable to him, it may be said that he claims that a vacant and unimproved lot, which he purchased after a grade had been properly established in front thereof, has been damaged by change of such grade, which change was made by the county commissioners in conformity to law, for the purpose of providing an approach to a county bridge over the Ohio canal, but which change was not made by the city in conformity to the law in reference to the change of grade of city streets, and that by reason of the acts of said commissioners, ingress and egress to his said lot has been rendered difficult and inconvenient, and as a consequence of said improvement, travel which otherwise would pass on the side of said street next to said lot, has been diverted so as to pass on the side opposite to said lot, and on the grade of said approach.

We have re-examined a great many of the reported Ohio cases upon this subject— those cited and others — and we are unanimously of the opinion that in this state a property owner cannot recover damages from a political subdivision of the state for changing, in conformity to law, the established grade of a street in front of privately owned property, unless said property has been improved with reference to said established grade and the grade has been changed to the damage of said improved property.

Funk, PJ, and Washburn, J, concur.
# EUR-Lex - 31995R1818 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995R1818

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1818/95 of 26 July 1995 amending Regulation (EC) No 1573/95 on the detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EEC) No 1418/76 with regard to import duties on rice **

*
Official Journal L 175 , 27/07/1995 P. 0025 - 0025 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1818/95 of 26 July 1995 amending Regulation (EC) No 1573/95 on the detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EEC) No 1418/76 with regard to import duties on rice

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1418/76 of 21 June 1976 on the common organization of the market in rice (1), as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1530/95 (2), and in particular Article 12 (2) and (4) thereof,

Whereas Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1573/95 (3) lays down that the import duties for certain rice products must be fixed by the Commission every two weeks on a Wednesday for application from the following day;

Whereas, since the system provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1573/95 applies from 1 July 1995, it is necessary to provide that the first fixing of import duties should cover the period between 1 July and the first Thursday of that month; whereas Regulation (EC) No 1573/95 should therefore be amended to that effect;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The first subparagraph of Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 1573/95 is hereby replaced by the following:

'1. The import duties for the products referred to in Article 3 shall be calculated every week but shall be fixed by the Commission every two weeks on a Wednesday and for the period up to the first Thursday of July 1995 from 1 July of that year, in accordance with the method provided for in Article 5 and shall apply from the day following their fixing.`

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 1 July 1995.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 26 July 1995.

For the Commission Franz FISCHLER Member of the Commission
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001072702
<NAME>                        Fortune Entertainment Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         11,522
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  35,785
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               55,905
<PP&E>                                         110,606
<DEPRECIATION>                                 13,590
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,926,776
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,421,191
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    10
<COMMON>                                       1,667
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,274,335
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,926,776
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,519,478
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,519,478)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,519,478)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,519,478)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.10)



</TABLE>
Martin, Michael (OST)

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Michael,

Chuck Howell <chowell@flygreatlakes.com>

Wednesday, March OS,2014 12:55 PM

Martin, Michael (OsT)

RE:support of SOW - FNM - DEN route

As you are aware we have flown SOW-FMN-DEN roundtrip in the past and are now again requesting adding the Denver

Hub in addition to the current Phoenix Hub to allow flow of airplanes and crew for better efficiency.

This will be a one-stop over Farmington NM as we did before. This will be flown under the same departure rate in the

current EASOrder. Therefore no additional subsidy is being requested.

We are schedule to start this service pattern on March 9, 2014.

If you have any additional questions please let us know.

Thanks in advance for your help in this matter.

Regards,

Chuck Howell

CEO

1
§ 33.97 Thrust reversers. ( a ) If the engine incorporates a reverser, the endurance, calibration, operation, and vibration tests prescribed in this subpart must be run with the reverser installed. In complying with this section, the power control lever must be moved from one extreme position to the other in not more than one second except, if regimes of control operations are incorporated necessitating scheduling of the power-control lever motion in going from one extreme position to the other, a longer period of time is acceptable but not more than three seconds. In addition, the test prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section must be made. This test may be scheduled as part of the endurance run.
( b ) 175 reversals must be made from flight-idle forward thrust to maximum reverse thrust and 25 reversals must be made from rated takeoff thrust to maximum reverse thrust. After each reversal the reverser must be operated at full reverse thrust for a period of one minute, except that, in the case of a reverser intended for use only as a braking means on the ground, the reverser need only be operated at full reverse thrust for 30 seconds.
[Doc. No. 3025, 29 FR 7453, June 10, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 33-3, 32 FR 3737, Mar. 4, 1967; Amdt. No. 33-35, 87 FR 75711, Dec. 9, 2022; 88 FR 2813, Jan. 18, 2023]
#### Nelson v. Nelson

*H. Goldstein,*for plaintiff.

December 24, 1957.

Jacobs, J.,

The master’s report in this case shows that notice of the hearing was received by defendant six days before the hearing was held. This is not a compliance with rule 128 of the rules of this court which requires that the master shall give at least 10 days written notice of the hearing to defendant. This rule requires 10 days actual notice.

The notice in this case was mailed September 19, 1957, but was not delivered until September 28, 1957. *376Such delay was probably due to the fact that the notice was sent by registered mail “deliver to addressee only.” Rule 128 requires only that notice be given by registered letter “return receipt requested.” It is not required to be sent by registered mail “deliver to addressee only.” See opinion of Judge Shughart in Hartzell v. Hartzell, 3 Cumberland 41.

It should also be noted that notice of the filing of the report must also be given by registered mail with return receipt requested and proof of such notice filed with the report. _ 7

7 *Order*

And now, December 24,1957, at 2:50 p.m., the above master’s report is referred back to the master with directions that he schedule a further hearing and give notice thereof as required by rule 128 of the rules of this court and in accordance with the above opinion.
§ 91.183 IFR communications. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, the pilot in command of each aircraft operated under IFR in controlled airspace must ensure that a continuous watch is maintained on the appropriate frequency and must report the following as soon as possible— ( a ) The time and altitude of passing each designated reporting point, or the reporting points specified by ATC, except that while the aircraft is under radar control, only the passing of those reporting points specifically requested by ATC need be reported;
( b ) Any unforecast weather conditions encountered; and
( c ) Any other information relating to the safety of flight.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-296, 72 FR 31679, June 7, 2007]
#### ROYAL INDEMNITY CO v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co.

No 9028.

Decided Jan. 14, 1929

Roscoe M Ewing, Cleveland, for Ind Co.

A B Cook, Cleveland, and S S Kates, for State.

Middleton, PJ and Mauck, J of the 4th Dist and Farr, J of the 7th Dist, sitting.

MAUCK, J

We are not so sure that this judgment would not require affirmance even through the statutes referred to were found to violate the Constitution. It might well be held that the parties could contract along the lines laid down by the statutes even though the legislature had no power to require them to so contract.

Taking the case, however, on the sole question raised by the plaintiff in error and assuming that if the statutes are unconstitutional the judgment must be reversed, we are impelled to affirm the judgment. The statutes in question have been repeatedly before the Supreme Court and have been construed and enforced by that court. The Supreme Court has accordingly by implication, determined that they offend no -constitutional provision.

Middleton and Farr, JJ, concur.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 41470 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v.
RICHARD GARZA,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:16 -CR- 179 -1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Richard Garza has moved for leave
to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Garza ha s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit 

### FILED August 22, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-41470 Document: 00514126916 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2017No. 16

- 41470

2 assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-41470 Document: 00514126916 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2017
VI 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 449 

For the relief of Valent Kolami. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2019 

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

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Valent Kolami. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR VALENT 

4 KOLAMI. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Valent Kolami shall be eligible for 

8 issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 

9 to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi10 dence upon filing an application for issuance of an immi11 grant visa under section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) 

12 or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 449 IS

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Valent Kolami en2 ters the United States before the filing deadline specified 

3 in subsection (c), Valent Kolami shall be considered to 

4 have entered and remained lawfully in the United States 

5 and shall be eligible for adjustment of status under section 

6 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

7 1255) as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Sub9 sections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application for 

10 the issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for 

11 adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees not 

12 later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 

13 Act. 

14 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.— 

15 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res16 idence to Valent Kolami, the Secretary of State shall in17 struct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current 

18 or next following fiscal year— 

19 (1) the total number of immigrant visas that 

20 are made available to natives of the country of birth 

21 of Valent Kolami under section 203(a) of the Immi22 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)); or 

23 (2) if applicable, the total number of immigrant 

24 visas that are made available to natives of the counVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:38 Feb 12, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S449.IS S449

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 449 IS

1 try of birth of Valent Kolami under section 202(e) 

2 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)). 

3 (e) PAYGO.—The budgetary effects of this Act, for 

4 the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You5 Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the 

6 latest statement titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 

7 Legislation’’ for this Act, submitted for printing in the 

8 Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate 

9 Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been 

10 submitted prior to the vote on passage. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION


     Each of the undersigned  hereby  certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Annual Report of Columbus McKinnon  Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K
for the year ended March 31,  2005,  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934  and  that
information contained in the such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in
all material respects,  the financial  condition and result of operations of the
Company.

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and  furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated:  June 7, 2006



                                                   /S/ TIMOTHY T. TEVENS
                                                   ---------------------
                                                   Timothy T. Tevens
                                                   Chief Executive Officer



                                                    /S/ KAREN L. HOWARD
                                                    -------------------
                                                    Karen L. Howard
                                                    Chief Financial Officer




                                       44
§ 398.6 Seat guarantees. ( a ) The number of seats guaranteed at the eligible place will be sufficient to accommodate the estimated passenger traffic at an average load factor of 60 percent, except that an average load factor of 50 percent will be used when service is provided with aircraft having fewer than 15 passenger seats.
( b ) Only under unusual circumstances will an eligible place's essential air service level be set at a number of flights that will accommodate more than 40 passengers a day in each direction (a total of 80 inbound and outbound passengers). Generally, 40 passengers can be accommodated by guaranteeing 67 seats a day in each direction (a total of 134 inbound and outbound seats).
( c ) The Department may guarantee an eligible place more than 67 seats a day if: ( 1 ) The number of stops between or beyond the eligible place and the hub results in available aircraft capacity being shared with passengers at those other places;
( 2 ) The distance between the eligible place and the designated hub requires the use of large aircraft;
( 3 ) The eligible place has suffered an abrupt and significant reduction in its service that warrants a temporary increase in the maximum guaranteed capacity; or
( 4 ) Other unusual circumstances warrant guaranteeing the eligible place more than 67 seats a day.
§ 61.21 Duration of a Category II and a Category III pilot authorization (for other than part 121 and part 135 use). ( a ) A Category II pilot authorization or a Category III pilot authorization expires at the end of the sixth calendar month after the month in which it was issued or renewed.
( b ) Upon passing a practical test for a Category II or Category III pilot authorization, the authorization may be renewed for each type of aircraft for which the authorization is held.
( c ) A Category II or Category III pilot authorization for a specific type aircraft for which an authorization is held will not be renewed beyond 12 calendar months from the month the practical test was accomplished in that type aircraft.
( d ) If the holder of a Category II or Category III pilot authorization passes the practical test for a renewal in the month before the authorization expires, the holder is considered to have passed it during the month the authorization expired.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DAVID ESPINOZA

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

.

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

'

' No. 08

- 14

- 00268

- CR

Appeal from the

120 th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20120D03772 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant ’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief

until April 21

, 201 5

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE

APPELLANT ’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. James D. L ucas, the Appellant ’s Attorney, prepare

th e Appellant ’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before April 21 , 201 5

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 25 th day of March , 201 5

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
Certification by Chief Executive Officer
 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 of Capital Bank Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, B. Grant Yarber, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:
 
 The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/B. Grant Yarber
 B. Grant Yarber
 President and Chief Executive Officer
 August 6, 2010
 
 This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 435.15 Rights not conferred by reentry license.

Issuance of a reentry license does not relieve a licensee of its obligation to comply with requirements of law that may apply to its activities.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

In re: 

 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO 

RICO, 

 PROMESA 

 Title III 

 

 

 as representative of 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO, et al 

 Debtors 

 

 No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

 (Jointly Administered) 

 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND REQUEST FOR SERVICE 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

 The undersigned is admitted and authorized to practice in this Court, and hereby appears in 

the Jointly Administered Title III cases as counsel for Concilio de Salud Integral de Loiza, Inc., 

(“Loiza”), a party in interest, and requests service of copies of all filings, orders, notices and 

documents henceforth to: 

 

 s/SERGIO A. RAMIREZ DE ARELLANO_____ 

 SERGIO A. RAMIREZ DE ARELLANO 

 SARLAW LLC

 Attorneys for Loiza 

 Banco Popular Center, Suite 1022 

 209 Muñoz Rivera Avenue 

 San Juan, PR 00918-1009

 Tel. 765-2988; 764-6392 

 Fax No. 765-2973 

 USDC No. 126804 

 sramirez@sarlaw.com

 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3110 Filed:05/21/18 Entered:05/21/18 18:47:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
2

 

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed 

electronically on this day with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System, which will send 

generate a notice to all CM/ECF participants in this case.

 

 s/SERGIO A. RAMIREZ DE ARELLANO____ 

 SERGIO A. RAMIREZ DE ARELLANO

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3110 Filed:05/21/18 Entered:05/21/18 18:47:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2