alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sherman Leland, Judge of Probate, &c. *versus*William Loud *et al.*

Where on a writ sued out in the name of the judge of probate upon an administra lion bond, was an indorsement that the action was brought for the benefit of a particular individual named, it was *held,*that, without the consent of the defendant, the writ could not be amended by striking out the special indorsement in order that the action might proceed for the benefit of whomsoever it might concern.

Debt on a probate bond, given by William and Benjamin Loud, (with sureties,) conditioned for the faithful performance of their duties as executors of the last will of William Loud, deceased. An indorsement on the writ states, that u me action is brought for the benefit of Daniel Loud, interested herein.” The jury having returned a verdict for the defendants, the plaintiff moved that judgment be rendered for the plaintiff notwithstanding the verdict. The Court were of opinion, that under the circumstances, the plaintiff was not entitled to judgment for the particular and sole use of Danie Loud, admitting that there had been a breach of the bond, but *234that the action should have been brought by the judge oí probate for the use of whomsoever it might concern. The counsel for the plaintiff thereupon moved the Court for ’iberty to amend the writ by striking out the special indorsement.

*Metcalf*and *Sampson,*for the plaintiff.

*Mann*and *Kingsbury,*for the defendants,

cited *Robbins*v *Hayward,*16 Mass. R. 524.

Wilde J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. The plaintiff's motion, we think, cannot be allowed ; because the amendment proposed would substantially change the parties and the grounds of the legal defence. By the statute, in the form this action is brought, judgment is to be rendered, if the action is maintained, in favor of the judge of probate, for the use of Daniel Loud, and Loud is entitled to sue out execution thereon. He is therefore" to be regarded as substantially the plaintiff in the action. He had the right, and it must be presumed that he exercised it, to sue out the writ in the name of the judge of probate, without any permission from him, and he has no authority to prosecute the action except for his own use. If therefore the amendment could be allowed, no one would be authorized to proceed in the action. And furthermore, if the amendment were allowable, it ought not to be granted but upon payment of costs to the defendants; so that little or nothing would be gained by the amendment. In the case of *Coffin*v. *Jones,*which came before the Court some years since, from Nantucket, a similar motion to amend was made ; and it was decided that the amendment could not be ahowed, except with the consent of the defendants. The question was then fully considered ; and we still remain of the opinion, that the decision was correct and conformable ts the obvious meaning of the statute.

*Judgment for the defendants for costs.*
#### § 450.205 Financial responsibility requirements.

A licensee must comply with financial responsibility requirements of part 440 of this chapter and as specified in a license or license order.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT  TO
                            18  U.S.C.  SECTION  1350,
                             AS  ADOPTED  PURSUANT  TO
                  SECTION  906  OF  THE  SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT  OF  2002

     In  connection  with the Quarterly Report of Amalgamated Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David  Rector,  Chief  Executive  and Financial 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,  that;

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

          (2)  The  information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  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.


/s/  David  Rector
------------------------
Name:  David  Rector
Title:  Chief  Executive  and  Financial  Officer
Date:  August  12,  2003


                                       14
<PAGE>
#### § 450.201 Responsibility for public safety and safety of property.

A licensee is responsible for ensuring public safety and safety of property during the conduct of a licensed launch or reentry.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Olive Lake quadrangle, Oregon :7.5-minute series (topographic)**
 
2012 | 2014 | 2015 | 2017
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28/6:44118-G 5/
Item Number:0080-G-04 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000932183
 
January 25, 2018
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

TQ DELTA, LLC, Appellant

v.

ARRIS GROUP, INC., Appellee

______________________

2021

- 1807

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016

- 01160.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

P ETER J. M C A NDREWS

, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by R AJENDRA A. C HIPLUNKAR

, D AVID Z. P ETTY

, T HOMAS J.

W IMBISCUS

.

D AN G RESHAM

, Thomas Horstemeyer LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellee. Also represented by C HARLES G RIGGERS

.

______________________ Case: 21-1807 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 01/25/2022T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN

, R EYNA

, and W ALLACH

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

January 25, 2022

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court Case: 21-1807 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 01/25/2022
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2014

- 3986 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NM

- 057

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then ou t of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$8 5 / h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Bombardier

Service Bulletin

(SB) 84

- 54

- 19,

Initial Issue, dated

18 April 2013 1.5 $ 127.50 $ 127.50 

### 80 $ 10,200.00



### Bombardier SB 84

-

54

- 21, Initial Issue,

dated 9 May 2013 3.0 $ 255.00 $4 $ 259.00 

### 80 $ 20,720.00



### Bombardier SB 84

-

54

- 20, Revision B,

dated 2 October

2014 21.0 $ 1,785.0

0 $ 1,785.00 

### 80 $ 142,800.00



### ombardier SB 84

-

32

- 112, Revision

B, dated 12

September 2014 12.0 $ 1,020.0

0 $4,977 $ 5,997.00 

### 80 $ 479,760.00



### Bombardier SB 84

-

32

- 114, Revision

A, dated 18

September 2013 12.0 $ 1,020.0

0 $3,470 $ 4,490.00 

### 80 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance:

### Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 653,480



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.0 0



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

Executive Order 12866 :

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of sma ll entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be t he only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
§ 61.167 Airline transport pilot privileges and limitations. ( a ) *Privileges.* ( 1 ) A person who holds an airline transport pilot certificate is entitled to the same privileges as a person who holds a commercial pilot certificate with an instrument rating.
( 2 ) A person who holds an airline transport pilot certificate and has met the aeronautical experience requirements of § 61.159 or § 61.161, and the age requirements of § 61.153(a)(1) of this part may instruct— ( i ) Other pilots in air transportation service in aircraft of the category, class, and type, as applicable, for which the airline transport pilot is rated and endorse the logbook or other training record of the person to whom training has been given;
( ii ) In flight simulators, and flight training devices representing the aircraft referenced in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, when instructing under the provisions of this section and endorse the logbook or other training record of the person to whom training has been given;
( iii ) Only as provided in this section, except that an airline transport pilot who also holds a flight instructor certificate can exercise the instructor privileges under subpart H of this part for which he or she is rated; and
( iv ) In an aircraft, only if the aircraft has functioning dual controls, when instructing under the provisions of this section.
( 3 ) Excluding briefings and debriefings, an airline transport pilot may not instruct in aircraft, flight simulators, and flight training devices under this section— ( i ) For more than 8 hours in any 24-consecutive-hour period; or
( ii ) For more than 36 hours in any 7-consecutive-day period.
( 4 ) An airline transport pilot may not instruct in Category II or Category III operations unless he or she has been trained and successfully tested under Category II or Category III operations, as applicable.
( b ) *Limitations.* A person who holds an airline transport pilot certificate and has not satisfied the age requirement of § 61.153(a)(1) and the aeronautical experience requirements of § 61.159 may not: ( 1 ) Act as pilot in command in operations conducted under part 121, § 91.1053(a)(2)(i), or § 135.243(a)(1) of this chapter, or
( 2 ) Serve as second in command in flag or supplemental operations in part 121 of this chapter requiring three or more pilots.
[Doc. No. FAA-2010-0100, 78 FR 42376, July 15, 2013, as amended by Amdt. 61-130B, 78 FR 77574, Dec. 24, 2013; Amdt. 61-130C, 81 FR 2, Jan. 4, 2016]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STUART LUCAS 1

,

Respondent Below

, Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES FOR

CHILDREN, YOUTH AND THEIR

FAMILIES

,

Petitioner Below,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No

. 1 4 8 , 2021

Court Below

– Family Court

of the State of Delaware

File No s

. 20

- 11

- 01TN

20

- 11

- 02TN

Petition No s

. 20

- 23873

20

- 23886

Submitted : February 9 , 2022

Decided: February 21 , 2022

Befor e SEITZ , Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY

- REEVES , Justices.

ORDER

On this 21 st day of February

, 202 2

, after careful consideration of all the briefs

and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the judgment of the Family Court

should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reason s stated in its April 15 , 2021

o rder

.

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family Court is

AFFIRMED

.

BY THE COURT :

/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery

- Reeves

Justice
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 302.16 Petitions for rulemaking.

Any interested person may petition the Department for the issuance, amendment, modification, or repeal of any regulation or guidance document, subject to the provisions of 49 CFR 5.3.

[86 FR 17294, Apr. 2, 2021]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>     5


<CAPTION>

Article 5 Fin. Data Schedule for 2nd Qtr 10-Q

<S>                               <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                     0
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           0
<PP&E>                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                        (3,675)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 27,725
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                               4,200
<OTHER-SE>                           (27,725)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               0
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           0
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                         (31,925)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.01)



</TABLE>
§ 63.12a Refusal to submit to an alcohol test or to furnish test results. A refusal to submit to a test to indicate the percentage by weight of alcohol in the blood, when requested by a law enforcement officer in accordance with § 91.11(c) of this chapter, or a refusal to furnish or authorize the release of the test results when requested by the Administrator in accordance with § 91.17 (c) or (d) of this chapter, is grounds for— ( a ) Denial of an application for any certificate or rating issued under this part for a period of up to 1 year after the date of that refusal; or
( b ) Suspension or revocation of any certificate or rating issued under this part.
[Doc. No. 21956, 51 FR 1229, Jan. 9, 1986, as amended by Amdt. 63-27, 54 FR 34330, Aug. 18, 1989]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 7322** 

ANDRE K. WATERS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden , Respondents

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States Distric t Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. Glen E. Conrad , District Judge. ( 7:08

- cv - 00555

- gec - mfu )

Submitted : February 25, 2010 Decided: March 3, 2010

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.

A ffirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Andre K. Waters, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Bugbee Winn, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Andr e K. Waters , a federal prisoner, appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Waters v. United States , No. 7:08

- cv 00555

- gec - mfu (W.D. Va. July 9, 2009) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 372 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

308 Nebraska Reports

GARRISON v. OTTO

Cite as 308 Neb. 372

Margaret L. Garrison, appellee, v. 

Logan M. Otto II, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed February 5, 2021. No. S-20-386.

Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: John 

A. Colborn, Judge. Affirmed.

Edith T. Peebles, of Brodkey, Cuddigan, Peebles, Belmont & 

Line, L.L.P., for appellant.

Adam R. Little, of Ballew Hazen, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal of a domestic abuse protection order, which 

we moved to our docket. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) 

(Cum. Supp. 2018).

The court, having considered the oral arguments and having reviewed the record de novo, finds that the domestic abuse 

protection order entered by the trial court should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

03/19/2021 12:09 AM CDT
Form of Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
 July 1, 2009 
 PAULSON CAPITAL CORP. 
 FORM OF 
 NON-STATUTORY STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT 
 UNDER 1999 STOCK OPTION PLAN 
 This NON-STATUTORY STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT is made between PAULSON CAPITAL CORP. (the “Company”), an Oregon corporation, and
                    (the “Optionee”), pursuant to the Company’s 1999 Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”). The Company and
the Optionee agree as follows: 
 1. Option Grant: The Company hereby grants to the Optionee, on the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and the Plan, the right and the option (the “Option”) to purchase all or any of              shares (the “Grant Shares”) of the
Company’s Common Stock at a purchase price of $1.13 per share. The terms and conditions applicable to grants of options of the Company’s Common Stock, as set forth in the Plan, are hereby incorporated into and made part of this Agreement.

 2. Time of Exercise of Option. The grant date of this Option is effective as of July 1, 2009(the
“Grant Date”). Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein and until the Option expires or is terminated as provided in the Plan, the Option may be exercised from time to time to purchase Grant Shares as follows: 
 On July 1, 2009, this Option shall become immediately exercisable to purchase all of the Grant Shares. 
 3. Expiration: The Option shall continue in effect until the earlier of June 30, 2016, or the date thirty days after the
Optionee’s service with the Company terminates (other than by reason of death or total disability, in which case the Option shall terminate 12 months after such termination of service), unless earlier terminated as provided in the Plan.

  
  

							
	PAULSON CAPITAL CORP.	 		 	OPTIONEE
				
	By:	 	  
	 		 	  

		 	Jacqueline M. Paulson	 		 	
		 	Corporate Secretary
#### § 71.1 Applicability.

A listing for Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points can be found in FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552 (a) and 1 CFR part 51. The approval to incorporate by reference FAA Order JO 7400.11J is effective September 15, 2024, through September 15, 2025. During the incorporation by reference period, proposed changes to the listings of Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points will be published in full text as proposed rule documents in the Federal Register, unless there is good cause to forego notice and comment. Amendments to the listings of Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points will be published in full text as final rules in the Federal Register. Periodically, the final rule amendments will be integrated into a revised edition of the Order and submitted to the Director of the Federal Register for approval for incorporation by reference in this section. This incorporation by reference material is available for inspection at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact the FAA at: Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597; phone: (202) 267-8783. An electronic version of FAA Order JO 7400.11J is available on the FAA website at *www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications.* A copy of FAA Order JO 7400.11J may be inspected in Docket No. FAA-2024-2061; Amendment No. 71-56, on *www.regulations.gov.* For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email *fr.inspection@nara.gov* or visit *www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.*

[Docket No. FAA-2024-2061; Amendment No. 71-56, 89 FR 68338, Aug. 26, 2024]

###### Effective Date Note

#### Effective Date Note:

By Docket No. FAA-2024-2061; Amendment No. 71-56, 89 FR 68338, Aug. 26, 2024, § 71.1 was revised, effective Sept. 15, 2024 through Sept. 15, 2025.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Dominic D . Miller , Appellant

No. 06

- 23

- 00066

- CV v.

Angela Smoak, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, and Matthew R. Patton, IV, Criminal Defense Attorney , Appellees Appeal from the 115th District Court of

Marion County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No.

2300042 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice van Cleef

, Chief

Justice Stevens and Justice Rambin participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal sh ould be dismissed

for want of prosecu tion . Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, Dominic D . Miller , has adequately indicated his inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JANUARY 8 , 2024

B Y ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
#### [512] Boardman & Conkling *vs.*House.

A person here *temporarily,*intending to return to the place of his domicil, is not a *resident*within the meaning of the “ act to abolish imprisonment,” &c.

The defendant, an inhabitant of *Michigan,*moved to be discharged from an arrest, on the ground that he had been a *resident*of this state for at least one month previous to the commencement of the suit against him, and in support of the motion relied upon the *act to abolish*imprisonment, *§c.*(Statutes, *session of*1831, *p.*396, § 2.)

*By the Court.*

The defendant is not a resident of this state within the meaning of the act: he is here temporarily, and intends to return to Michigan. Being here for pleasure or business does not exempt him from arrest. The motion is denied.