alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11991]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License; Applicant

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicant has filed with 
the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as Non-
Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean 
Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act 
of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 515).
    Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicant should 
not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, 
DC 20573.

Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder 
Transportation Intermediary Applicant

Pactrans Marine, Inc., 12801 S. Fiqueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90061.
    Officers: Jesse Domingo, Director (Qualifying Individual), Chee Tao 
Tsui, President.

    Dated: May 9, 2000.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-11991 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
#### § 1203.2 Investigation of representation disputes.

Applications for the services of the National Mediation Board under section 2, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act to investigate representation disputes among carriers' employees may be made on printed forms NMB-3, copies of which may be secured from the Board's Representation and Legal Department or on the internet at *www.nmb.gov.* Such applications and all correspondence connected therewith should be filed in duplicate and the applications should be accompanied by signed authorization cards from the employees composing the craft or class involved in the dispute. The applications should show specifically the name or description of the craft or class of employees involved, the name of the invoking organization or employee seeking certification, or the name of the employee seeking decertification, the name of the organization currently representing the employees, if any, and the estimated number of employees in each craft or class involved. The applications should be signed by the chief executive of the invoking organization, some other authorized officer of the organization, or by the invoking employee. These disputes are given docket numbers in the series “R”.

[84 FR 35989, July 26, 2019]
#### KLEIN v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9662.

Decided Feb 25, 1929

Morgenstern & Morgenstern, Cleveland, for Klein.

C F Shuler, Cleveland, for State.

VICKERY, PJ.

The only defense that We have heard in this case was self-defense. It is urged that this woman, the complaining witness was'a large woman and this man was only an ordinary sized man, and it would seem from the argument of counsel that the complaining witness was the aggressor; but unfortunately for his contention the record does not bear him out in the case. She was crossing the street, peaceably minding her own business when this man, driving. the car with his wife, because of some ill feeling before, undertook apparently to run her down and then swerved the car over so as just to miss her. It naturally aroused her ire and she spoke her mind to the driver, whereupon, as already detailed, Klein opened the door, reached out and gallantly kicked this woman adversary, and then she grabbed him by the leg and he then sought reinforcement with the crank used to crank his automobile and hit her over the head with it. How self-defense comes into this, is difficult to understand.

We have gone over this record and we can see no error in the findings of the court and the judgement will, therefore, be affirmed.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ, concur.
#### A. K. Baugher *et al*for use &c., *Plaintiff in*Error, v. Louis Boley, *Defendant in Error.*

On Rehearing.

Per Curiam.

— The receipts put in evidence by the defendant over the plaintiffs’ objections that they were irrelevant and that the statements therein were not binding upon the plaintiffs, could not bind the plaintiffs, but as the receipts tended to show that the defendant took possession when the 20 year statute of limitation was in force, and as the court holds the possession began after the 7 year statute became effective, the admission of the receipts was clearly harmless to the plaintiffs. The record does not show that the receipts were “merely unsworn declarations of third persons or *88self serving documents prepared by the defendant himself.” The assignments of error based on instructions given and refused were carefully considered by the court and no reversible error is made to appear therein. The evidence that the land was adversely held and had been protected by a substantial enclosure by the defendant for the full statutory period is held to be sufficient to ■sustain the verdict.

Rehearing denied.

Whitfield, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 747

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 747 appear at 84 FR 1609, Feb. 5, 2019.

#### § 747.207 Notice of termination of insured status.

Prior to the effective date of the termination of the insured status of an insured credit union under section 206(b) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1786(b)) and at such time as the Board shall specify, the credit union shall mail to each member at his or her last address of record on the books of the credit union, and publish in not less than two issues of a local newspaper of general circulation, notices of the termination of its insured status, and the credit union shall furnish the NCUA Board with proof of publication of such notice. The notice shall be as follows:

### NOTICE

(Date)

1. The status of the ______ as an insured credit union under the provisions of the Federal Credit Union Act, will terminate as of the close of business on the ____ day of ____;

2. Any deposits made by you after that date, either new deposits or additions to existing accounts, will not be insured by the National Credit Union Administration;

3. Accounts in the credit union on the ____ day of ____, ____ up to a maximum of $250,000 for each member, will continue to be insured, as provided by the Federal Credit Union Act, for one (1) year after the close of business on the ____ day of ____, ____: *Provided, however,* That any withdrawals after the close of business on the day of ____, ____; will reduce the insurance coverage by the amount of such withdrawals.

(Name of Credit Union)

(Address)

[56 FR 37767, Aug. 8, 1991; 57 FR 523, Jan. 7, 1992, as amended at 75 FR 34622, June 18, 2010; 85 FR 62213, Oct. 2, 2020]
#### DUNAWAY v. JAYNE et al.

No. 29674.

July 2, 1940.

*104 P. 2d 561.*

Goode & Goode, of Shawnee, and R. F. Barry, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Frantz C. Conrad and John Staley, both of Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

This was an action to have a contract decreed to be an equitable mortgage. The parties appear here in the same order as they did before the trial court and will be referred to as they appeared below. Trial was had to the court. Judgment was in favor of defendants, the plaintiff appeals.

As grounds for the reversal of said judgment, the plaintiff submits the following propositions:

> “The findings and judgment of the court are against the clear weight of the evidence.

> “One partner cannot maintain an action at law against another partner.

> “The court committed reversible error in rejecting competent evidence offered by the plaintiff.

> “This, court will render the judgment the trial court should have rendered— a judgment for the plaintiff.”

It will be unnecessary to discuss these contentions separately. The contract in question was one for the sale of certain oil and gas mining leases by Count Dun-away and L. L. Jayne to one J. F. Smith for a cash consideration of $1,500 and $26,000 out of oil to be paid out of the one-eighth of the seven-eighths working interest if, as, and when said oil was produced from the premises so sold. The plaintiff undertook to prove that the interest of L. L. Jayne as grantor in said contract was merely that of an equitable mortgagee to secure an indebtedness owing to her from the plaintiff. Evidence was in conflict in many material respects, but it tended to establish that the plaintiff and defendant were joint adventurers as defined in Coryell v. Marrs, 180 Okla. 394, 70 P. 2d 478, and McKeel v. Mercer, 118 Okla. 66, 246 P. 619. The contract upon its face showed that the plaintiff and defendant were co-owners of the leases and interests therein described. The plaintiff had the burden of establishing by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that *539the instrument was intended to operate as an equitable mortgage before he was entitled to recover. Embry v. Villines, 175 Okla. 552, 53 P. 2d 277; Morrison v. Krouch, 141 Okla. 288, 285 P. 10. The plaintiff failed to sustain the burden which was placed upon him. The evidence, as above stated, was conflicting in many material respects, and the finding and judgment of the trial court finds ample support in the evidence. The action being one cognizable in equity, this court will not disturb the findings and judgment except where, after an examination of the entire record, they are shown to be clearly against the weight of the evidence. Villines v. Conatser, 151 Okla. 144, 2 P. 2d 1024. The findings and judgment of the trial court are not against the clear weight of the evidence, therefore said judgment is affirmed.

BAYLESS, C.J., WELCH, V.C.J., and OSBORN, HURST, and DANNER, JJ., concur.
#### Cornelius Van Giesen *against*Garrabrant Van Houten.

ON CERTIORARI.

Note not paid added, and if more'than*0 Action.(a)

(a)

*La Rue vs. Boughaner, 1 South. 104*(b). *Williams vs. Hamilton, 1 South, 220(b). Griffith vs. Clute, 4 Hal, 264. Howell vs. Burnett. Spen. 265. Inhabitants of Saddle River, vs. Colfax, 1 Hal. 115.*

Kirkpatrick C. J.

This is an action upon a note of hand, made by the defendant, *Van Giesen,to*one *Van Giesen,*for $100, dated *May*24, 1816, and payable in sixty days ; and by the said *Marselis Van Giesen,*assigned to the plaintiff, *Van Houten.*The action was instituted *March*22, 1817 ; and the defendant insisted, before the justice, that the principal and interest of the said note, amounted to more than $100 ; and there being no credits allowed, plead to the jurisdiction of the court.

According to the course of decision here, this was a good plea. The justice ought to have given judgment upon it for the defendant, and to have dismissed the suit.

Reversed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 1.4 Report of agency construction programs.

On an annual basis, each Federal agency using wage determinations under the Davis-Bacon Act or any of the laws referenced by § 5.1 of this subtitle, must furnish the Administrator with a report that contains a general outline of its proposed construction programs for the upcoming 3 fiscal years based on information in the Federal agency's possession at the time it furnishes its report. This report must include a list of proposed projects (including those for which options to extend the contract term of an existing construction contract are expected during the period covered by the report); the estimated start date of construction; the anticipated type or types of construction; the estimated cost of construction; the location or locations of construction; and any other project-specific information that the Administrator requests. The report must also include notification of any significant changes to previously reported construction programs, such as the delay or cancellation of previously reported projects. Reports must be submitted no later than April 10 of each year by email to *DavisBaconFedPlan@dol.gov*, and must include the name, telephone number, and email address of the official responsible for coordinating the submission.

[88 FR 57724, Aug. 23, 2023]
#### The People, *ex relatione*Hendricks, *vs.*The Superior Court of the City of New York.

ALBANY,

Feb. 1838.

Where the proceeding on the part of a plaintiff in the prosecution of a suit is grossly vexatious and oppressive, and costs to a heavy amount are incurred, in consequence of the defendant having been purposely misled by the plaintiff, the suit will be ordered to be discontinued without costs, on the sum in demand being paid into court.

Motion for mandamus. A suit was commenced by the relator against the North River Bank, in the city of New-York, during the general suspension of specie payments by the banks of this state ; and on the application of the defendants, the superior court of the city of New-York, in which the suit was prosecuted, made an order that the defendants have leave to pay into court the debt demanded, for the benefit of the plaintiff, and that the suit be discontinued without costs. The relator applied for a mandamus to vacate this order. It appeared, in opposition to the motion, that on the thirteenth day of December last, a demand of payment in specie was made at the counter of the North River Bank of a bundle of bank bills, amounting together to the sum of $435. Within an hour after the demand, the cashier of the bank called on the plaintiff, informed him of the demand, and told him he had come to pay the amount of the bills, in specie. The plaintiff denied having sued the bank, and told the cashier that it was all a mistake, and that he would have the matter stopped. Receiving this answer, the cashier left the plaintiff without making a formal tender. The next day a summons, containing sixteen hundred folios, was served upon the corporation, and the cashier again called upon the plaintiff, who said that he had not intended to sue the bank, and that he did not want the specie, but requested that the costs might be paid, though they should amount to $200. Instead of doing so, the defendants applied to the superior court.

*101
      *By the*Court,

Bronson, J.

This was a vexatious and oppressive proceeding to make costs, and not a fair and *hona fide*attempt to enforce a legal right. The defendants also, when prepared and ready to pay the *specie,*were purposely misled. None of the facts are denied by the relator. The superior court, therefore, were well warranted in the order made, and are fully supported by the case of *Johnson*v. *Houlditch,*1 Burr. 578, where the plaintiff having kept out of the way to avoid a *tender,*the court turned the plaintiff out .of court without costs.

Motion for *mandamus*denied, with costs.
#### § 91.1099 Crewmember initial and recurrent training requirements.

No program manager may use a person, nor may any person serve, as a crewmember in operations under this subpart unless that crewmember has completed the appropriate initial or recurrent training phase of the training program appropriate to the type of operation in which the crewmember is to serve since the beginning of the 12th month before that service.
#### § 102.59 Hearing and posthearing procedures.

After the issuance of a compliance specification and Notice of Hearing, the procedures provided in §§ 102.24 through 102.51 will be followed insofar as applicable.
#### Hugh Miller adsm. Robert Carhart.

Euleto take fií£tr(b)

THE judgment of the justice having been reversed, m°ved for leave to take from the files, the sealed bill given by *Carhart*to *Miller,*and on which the action was brought.

(b)

*Nicholls vs. State, ante 542. Morris Canal ads. State, 2 Gr. 411 Morrell vs. Fearing, Spen. 670.*See *Browning vs. Cooper, 3 Har. 196.*

By the Court.

The original evidences of the debt, such as bonds, bills, and notes, on which the suit is brought, ought not to be sen t up with the *certiorari.*The justice ought to send certified copies of them. The *829originals are very seldom necessary, or at all useful, in this court; and when necessary may be obtained, by special rule, for that purpose. When they are sent up, they can only be taken from the files by rule for that purpose, ordered upon the minutes, that it may appear when and why they were taken. Let the rule be entered, and the bill taken, in the present case.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 92 (Thursday, May 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11768]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with 
attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend 
and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or 
other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person 
listed below in advance of the meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation 
Research Committee.
    Date: June 1-2, 2000.
    Open: June 1, 2000, 8:30 a.m. to 9:15 a.m.
    Agenda: Discussion of administrative details relating to 
committee business and program review.
    Place: Hyatt Arlington Hotel, Salon A Room, 1325 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA 22209.

    Closed: June 1, 2000, 9:15 a.m. to adjournment.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Arlington Hotel, Salon A Room, 1325 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA 22209.
    Contact Person: Madelon C. Halula, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, NIAID, NIH, Room 2217, 6700-B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7610, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-7610; 301-496-2550.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 4, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-11768 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
This .zip file contains graphic files (in .png format) of each chart and graph in the Economic Research Service report "Additionality in U.S. Agricultural Conservation and Regulatory Offset Programs" ERR-170, published in July 2014. The content and context of these files is as of the publication 
date of the report. After time, the material may not reflect the current ERS program of work, may be outdated, and/or superseded, so please visit the website to 
obtain the latest information: www.ers.usda.gov. Any reuse of these images should include attribution to "Economic Research Service/USDA."

The following inventory lists each of the files in this folder.


File name			Description       
(Fig01.png)			Figure 1 - Conservation practice adoption and payment rates for conservation practice groups
(Fig02.png)			Figure 2 - Conservation practice adoption and payment rates for widely used conservation practices
(Fig03.png)			Figure 3 - Average payments rates for conservation tillage in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)   
(Fig04.png)			Figure 4 - Supply of additional reductions and offset credits for wheat
(Fig05.png)			Figure 5 - Supply of additional reductions and offset credits for corn  
(FigApp1-01.png)		App fig 1-1 - Upper quintile propensity score distributions
#### George & George *vs.*Orcutt & Orcutt.

ALBANY,

March, 1839.

A certiorari to remove a cause from a court of common pleas into this court, must be filed eight days before the first term at which the issue joined in the same might be tried, if the cause was not removed.

Motion to quash a *certiorari*removing this cause from the Onondaga C. P. into this court. After issue joined, the cause was noticed for trial in the court below, and the trial was put off by the defendants on payment of costs. The cause was again noticed for trial for a subsequent term, and the plaintiffs made preparations for the trial, when the defendants sued out a certiorari to remove the cause into this court, but did not pay the plaintiffs’ costs for the second notice of trial. The plaintiffs now move to quash the writ.

*A. Taber,*for the plaintiffs.

*M. T. Reynolds,*for the defendants.

*By the Court,*

Bronson, J.

A writ of *certiorari*to remove an action into this court from the common pleas, must not only be filed with the clerk of the C. P. before any juror has been sworn, *2*R. S. 389, § 7, *Day*v. *Gallup,*18 Wendell, 513, but it must be filed at least eight days before the first day of the term at which the issue might be tried, according to the practice of the court. If not filed within that time, the writ will only be effectual to remove the cause, on paying the plaintiffs’ costs, in noticing for trial. § 8. We shall, I think, most fully carry into effect the policy of the law, by holding that the writ must be filed eight days before *648the first term at which the issue could be tried, or else that the defendant must pay costs. But as this is a new question, the motion to quash the certiorari will be denied, on payment by the defendants, of the costs of the motion, and of preparing for trial in the C. P. on the last notice. The plaintiffs may change the venue to any county adjoining Onondaga.

Ordered accordingly.