alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Resp’ts, *v.*Charles D. Sutton, App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed June 28, 1889.)*

Criminal law—Assault in third degree—Validity of sentence— Penal Code, § 222—Code Ckim. Pro , § 718.

A defendant convicted of an assault in the third degree was sentenced to he imprisoned “for the term of one year and to pay a fine of $250, and he imprisoned not to exceed one day for each dollar of said fine,” etc. *Held,*that the sentence is valid; that when defendant has served out the term of his imprisonment, he can test the question upon that part of the sentence imposing the fine, hut can have no relief until that time.

*Nelson H. Baker,*district attorney, for resp’ts; *Hiram Paulding,*for app’lt.

Pratt, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of assault in the third degree.

There is no error in the judgment. By the Penal Code, assault in the third degree is punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than $500, or both; section *222.*The imposition of a fine is in addition to the sentence of imprisonment.

Section 718 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that where a fine is imposed a convict may be imprisoned until the fine is paid. The sentence imposed in this case was as follows: * * * “for the term of one year and to pay a fine of $250, and be imprisoned not to exceed one day for each dollar of said fine,” etc.

The sentence was in accordance with the Code. When the defendant has served out the term of his imprisonment he can apply for a *habeas corpus,*and test the question upon that part of the sentence which imposes the fine, but he can have no relief now as the sentence is within the term of the law. If it shall turn out that the part of the sentence imposing the fine is void for uncertainty he can be discharged, but until then he is held under a perfectly valid sentence.

We see no error in the judgment, and the sentence seems to be in the exact form prescribed by law.

Judgment affirmed.

All concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. 24 - 0048 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JONATHAN DOUGLAS SHAW,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 28 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 20 2024

05/20/2024
Case Number: DA 24-0048
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41159

GREGORY HILL, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4-13-CV-74

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gregory Hill, a retired football player, sought benefits from the Bert 

Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan (“the Plan”), which is an ERISA 

plan that provides disability benefits to former NFL players. The Plan 

administrator granted Hill’s claim for benefits but found that he was entitled 

to a lower monthly benefit than Hill requested. Hill sought review of the Plan 

administrator’s decision in federal court, arguing that he is entitled to a 

 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 19, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41159 Document: 00513160873 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2015
No. 14-41159

2

greater monthly benefit. Reviewing under the deferential abuse-of-discretion 

framework, the district court ruled in favor of the Plan. 

Hill appealed. Having studied the record and briefs, and having heard 

the oral argument of the parties, we agree with the district court’s conclusions 

that the Plan administrator did not abuse its discretion in interpreting the 

Plan or in deciding the benefit to which Hill is entitled under the Plan. We, 

therefore, affirm the judgment of the district court.1 

AFFIRMED.

 

1 “[I]f the language of the plan . . . grant[s] the plan administrator discretionary 

authority to construe the terms of the plan or determine eligibility for benefits, a plan’s 

eligibility determination must be upheld by a court unless it is found to be an abuse of 

discretion.” Atkins v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Ret. Plan, 694 F.3d 557, 566 (5th 

Cir. 2012). “[F]actual determinations made by the plan administrator during the course of a 

benefits review will be rejected only upon a showing of abuse of discretion.” Id.

 Case: 14-41159 Document: 00513160873 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2015
[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:****Groundwater in alluvium of theLower Mississippi Valley (upper and central areas)**
 
Volume One, Plate One, PlateTwo
Volume Two
 
SuDoc Number:D 103.24/2:3-658/V.1-2
Item Number:0334-A-36 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000915783
 
January 12, 2018
[No. 20341-7-III.

Division Three.

November 21, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Johnnie Zane Massaro, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Walla Walla County, No. 00-1-00444-1, Robert L. Zagelow, J., entered June 11, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Schultheis, J., concurred in by Kato, A.C. J., and Sweeney, J.
EXHIBIT
32.1
  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 Centracan Incorporated, a Florida
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the year ended September 30, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Jerome Goubeaux, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to
the best of his knowledge, 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 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.
   /s/
      Jerome GoubeauxJerome
      GoubeauxChief
      Executive OfficerNovember
      13, 2008
No. 17,256.

#### Dawson *v.*Eads.

*Demurrer.*— To *Answer.*— Sufficiency *of .*— When *Presents no Question.*—A demurrer of the following tenor, to an answer: “It does not state facts sufficient to make a good answer to the complaint,” is not sufficient to present any question upon the answer. The demurrer should state that the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of dofense. (Section 349, R. S. 1894.)

From the Miami Circuit Court.

*M. H. Kidd*and *J. Mitchell,*for appellant.

*G. W. Watkins*and *W. 11. Hart,*for appellee.

Monks, J.

— This action was brought by appellant against appellee to recover damages for slander. The complaint was in five paragraphs; appellee filed his answer in two paragraphs, the first of which was a general denial, and the second a plea of justification. To the second paragraph of answer appellant filed a demurrer which was overruled, and an exception taken. The cause was tried by a jury which returned a verdict upon which judgment was rendered for appellee. The only error assigned is that the court below erred in overruling the demurrer to the second paragraph of answer.

It is earnestly insisted by the appellant that the second paragraph of answer is wholly insufficient, and that the *209demurrer thereto ought to have been sustained. Counsel for appellee urge that the demurrer is wholly insufficient, in this, that it does not allege one of the statutory causes, and for that reason presents no question for the consideration of this court.

Filed Feb. 21, 1895.

The demurrer to the second paragraph of answer was for the following cause:

> “It does not state facts sufficient to make a good answer to the complaint.”

Section 346, R. S. 1881 (section 349, R. S. 1894), provides that “when the facts stated in any paragraph of answer are not sufficient to constitute a cause of defense the plaintiff may demur to it under the rules prescribed for demurring to a complaint.”

Such objection to an answer, unless taken by demurrer, is waived. R. S. 1881, sections 339, 343 (R. S. 1894, sections 342, 346).

It was held by this court in *Thomas*v. *Goodwine,*88 Ind. 458, that a demurrer, in the same words as the one in this case, presented no question; that case has been frequently cited, and approved on this point. *Campbell*v. *Campbell,*121 Ind. 178.

We therefore sustain the point made by appellee against the demurrer. The same presents no question upon the answer for the determination of this court.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4833 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4833

   To amend title 32, United States Code, to authorize cybersecurity 
 operations and missions to protect critical infrastructure by members 
    of the National Guard in connection with training or other duty.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             October 21 (legislative day, October 19), 2020

Ms. Hassan (for herself and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 32, United States Code, to authorize cybersecurity 
 operations and missions to protect critical infrastructure by members 
    of the National Guard in connection with training or other duty.

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

SECTION 1. CYBERSECURITY OPERATIONS AND MISSIONS TO PROTECT CRITICAL 
              INFRASTRUCTURE BY MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD IN 
              CONNECTION WITH TRAINING OR OTHER DUTY.

    Section 502(f)(1) of title 32, United States Code, is amended by 
adding after the flush matter at the end the following new sentence: 
``Such training or other duty may include cybersecurity operations or 
missions undertaken by the member's unit at the request of the Governor 
of the State concerned to protect critical infrastructure (as that term 
is defined in the Critical Infrastructures Protection Act of 2001 (42 
U.S.C. 5195c)).''.
                                 <all>
```
# EUR-Lex - 31997D0572 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997D0572

**97/572/EC: Commission Decision of 22 July 1997 amending Decision 87/257/EEC on the list of establishments in the United States of America approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 236 , 27/08/1997 P. 0014 - 0018 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 22 July 1997 amending Decision 87/257/EEC on the list of establishments in the United States of America approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community (Text with EEA relevance) (97/572/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat or meat products from third countries (1), as last amended by Directive 96/91/EC (2), and in particular Articles 4 (1) and 18 (1) thereof,

Whereas a list of establishments in the United States of America, approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community, was drawn up initially by Commission Decision 87/257/EEC (3) as last amended by Decision C(96) 3126 (4); whereas that list may be amended at any time in the light of the results of Community inspections carried out in the United States of America;

Whereas negotiations are under way to conclude an agreement with the United States on health measures to protect health and animal health in the context of trade in livestock and products of animal origin;

Whereas this situation, progress already achieved, and the need to avoid distortion of trade justify the postponement of the deadline established for the landing of certain fresh meat, from 31 July 1997 to 31 January 1998; whereas the fixing of this date is without prejudice either to the date of conclusion or to the content of the abovementioned agreement;

Whereas the list of establishments must be amended accordingly;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 87/257/EEC is hereby replaced by the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 July 1997.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 302, 31. 12. 1972, p. 28.

(2) OJ No L 13, 16. 1. 1997, p. 26.

(3) OJ No L 121, 9. 5. 1987, p. 46.

(4) OJ No C 366, 5. 12. 1996, p. 3.

ANNEX

List of establishments in the United States of America approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community

>TABLE>
#### Gulfport Fert. Co. *v.*Jones.

Assumpsit.

(Decided November 21, 1916.

73 South. 148.)

Payment; Pleading; Instruction. — Where payment was not specially pleaded, and therefore not made an issue in the case, it was error to give a charge submitting payment as one of the defenses.

Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. Samuel B. Browne.

Assumpsit by the Gulfport Fertilizer Company against Burke

Jones, Sr. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Harry T. Smith & Caffey, for appellant.

Rickarby & Austill, for appellee.

PELHAM, P. J.

This case, like the case of *Gulfport Fertilizer Co. v. Burke Jones, Jr.,*73 South. 145, submitted at the same time and disposed of at the present term (opinion November 14, 1916), was tried on false issues. The court in this case, as in the case heretofore disposed of by us, authorized a finding in favor of the defendant below (appellee) on evidence, if believed by the jury, going to show a liquidation, or payment, of the debt or demand sued upon. Payment not being pleaded, and not made an issue in the case, this action of the trial court was error. One of the assignments of error presents this question, and a reversal must be ordered. See *Gulfport Fertilizer Co. v. Burke Jones, Jr.,*73 South. 145, present term.

Reversed and remanded.
§ 303.30 General provisions concerning contents of applications. A section 41309 application shall contain the following general information: ( a ) The name, mailing address and primary line of business of each party to the contract, agreement or request for authority to discuss a possible cooperative working arrangement.
( b ) If the contract or agreement for which approval is sought is not evidenced by a resolution of an air carrier association, the application shall contain a copy of the contract or agreement that is certified to be true and complete by each party to the contract of agreement. If the contract or agreement is set forth in an exchange of correspondence, copies of all such correspondence must be submitted and must be certified as true and complete by all parties to the contract or agreement. If the contract or agreement is oral, a memorandum fully describing the agreement must be submitted and must be certified as true and complete by all parties to the contract or agreement. If approval is sought for a request for authority to discuss a possible cooperative working arrangement, the application shall contain a complete description of the possible cooperative working arrangement and all matters to be discussed. The description shall be certified to be true and complete by each party to the proposed discussion.
( c ) If the contract, agreement or request for authority to discuss a cooperative working arrangement is evidenced by a resolution or other action of an air carrier association, the application shall contain the resolution or other action and a certification by an authorized employee of the association that the resolution or other action was duly adopted on a certain date. The authorized employee shall also specify in such certification the name of each air carrier that concurred in such resolution or other action and the name of each air carrier member that did not concur.
[50 FR 31142, July 31, 1985, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15937, Apr. 16, 2019]
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4743 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4743

To amend the Act of August 10, 1956, to provide for the payment of pay 
and allowances for certain officers of the Army who are assigned to the 
                          Corps of Engineers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 2020

  Mr. Rounds introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Act of August 10, 1956, to provide for the payment of pay 
and allowances for certain officers of the Army who are assigned to the 
                          Corps of Engineers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``USACE Military Augmentation Act of 
2020''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF CERTAIN OFFICERS FROM 
              APPROPRIATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS.

    Section 36 of the Act of August 10, 1956 (70A Stat. 634, chapter 
1041), is amended--
            (1) by striking ``Regular officers of the Corps of 
        Engineers of the Army, and reserve officers of the Army who are 
        assigned to the Corps of Engineers,'' and inserting the 
        following:
    ``(a) In General.--The personnel described in subsection (b)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Personnel Described.--The personnel referred to in subsection 
(a) are the following:
            ``(1) Regular officers of the Corps of Engineers of the 
        Army.
            ``(2) The following members of the Army who are assigned to 
        the Corps of Engineers:
                    ``(A) Reserve component officers.
                    ``(B) Warrant officers (whether regular or reserve 
                component).
                    ``(C) Enlisted members (whether regular or reserve 
                component).''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 1620.9 Meaning of “establishment.” ( a ) Although not expressly defined in the FLSA, the term “establishment” had acquired a well settled meaning by the time of enactment of the Equal Pay Act. It refers to a distinct physical place of business rather than to an entire business or “enterprise” which may include several separate places of business. Accordingly, each physically separate place of business is ordinarily considered a separate establishment.
( b ) In unusual circumstances, two or more portions of a business enterprise, even though located in a single physical place of business, may constitute more than one establishment. For example, the facts might reveal that these portions of the enterprise are physically segregated, engaged in functionally separate operations, and have separate employees and maintain separate records. Conversely, unusual circumstances may call for two or more distinct physical portions of a business enterprise being treated as a single establishment. For example, a central administrative unit may hire all employees, set wages, and assign the location of employment; employees may frequently interchange work locations; and daily duties may be virtually identical and performed under similar working conditions. Barring unusual circumstances, however, the term “establishment” will be applied as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
EXHIBIT 21.1

                          COLUMBUS MCKINNON CORPORATION

                                  SUBSIDIARIES
                             (AS OF MARCH 31, 2006)


CM Insurance Company, Inc. (US-NY)
Columbus McKinnon de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
Columbus McKinnon de Uruguay, S.A. (Uruguay)
Columbus McKinnon do Brazil Ltda. (Brazil)
Crane Equipment & Service, Inc. (US-OK)
     Larco Industrial Services, Ltd. (Canada)
Societe d'Exploitation des Raccords Gautier (France)
Univeyor A/S (Denmark)
     Ejendomsselskabet Lupinvej 11 (Denmark)
     Univeyor AB (Sweden)
     Univeyor Conveying Systems Ltd. (England)
Yale Industrial Products, Inc. (US-DE)
     Egyptian-American Crane Co. (40% Joint Venture) (Egypt)
     Spreckels Water Company, Inc. (US-DE)
         Spreckels Consolidated Industries, Inc. (US-CA)
     Audubon Europe S.a.r.l. (Luxembourg)
         Columbus McKinnon Limited (Canada)
         Yale Industrial Products Ltd. (England)
         Yale Industrial Products GmbH (Germany)
              Asia Hoist Co., Ltd. (Hong Kong)
              Camlok Lifting Clamps Ltd. (England)
              Hangzhou LILA Lifting and Lashing Co. Ltd. (China)
              Yale Levage (France)
              Yale Elevacion Iberica S.L. (Spain)
              Yale Hangzhou Industrial Products Ltd. (China)
              Yale Industrial Products Asia (Thailand) Co. Ltd.
              Yale Industrial Products B.V. (The Netherlands)
              Yale Industrial Products GmbH (Austria)
              Yale Industrial Products Pty. Ltd. (South Africa)
              Yale Lifting & Mining Products (Pty.) Ltd.
                 (25% Financial Interest) (South Africa)
              Yale Industrial Products Kft. (Hungary)


                                       40