alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1603.211 Subpoenas. ( a ) Upon written application of any party, the administrative law judge may on behalf of the Commission issue a subpoena requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of any evidence, including, but not limited to, books, records, correspondence, or documents, in their possession or under their control. The subpoena shall state the name and address of the party at whose request the subpoena was issued, identify the person and evidence subpoenaed, and state the date and time the subpoena is returnable.
( b ) Any person served with a subpoena who intends not to comply shall, within 5 days after service of the subpoena, petition the administrative law judge in writing to revoke or modify the subpoena. All petitions to revoke or modify shall also be served upon the party at whose request the subpoena was issued. The requestor may file with the administrative law judge a response to the petition to revoke or modify within 5 days after service of the petition.
( c ) Upon the failure of any person to comply with a subpoena issued under this section, the administrative law judge may refer the matter to the Commission for enforcement in accordance with 29 CFR 1601.16(c).
[62 FR 17543, Apr. 10, 1997, as amended at 89 FR 47853, June 4, 2024]
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant, and Peter Galioto, II, Respondent.

[697 NYS2d 415]

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition seeking to stay arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b). The court properly determined that respondent was a resident of his mother’s household and was thus an insured person under the supplementary uninsured motorists endorsement to the automobile liability policy issued by petitioner to respondent’s mother. The unsworn statement of respondent’s mother and the hearsay letter offered by petitioner in support of the petition are without evidentiary value *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557; *Bendik v Dybowski,*227 AD2d 228, 229; *Rue v Stokes,*191 AD2d 245, 246). The remaining submissions supporting the petition were not sufficient to entitle petitioner to a stay of arbitration in light of the affidavits of respondent stating that he had his own key to his mother’s home and was free to come and go at will; that he kept clothing and received mail there; and that he spent three to four nights each week there, spending the remainder of his time at the home of his mother’s former boyfriend *(see, Nationwide Ins. Co. v Allstate Ins. Co.,*181 AD2d 1022; *cf., Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Gutstein,*80 NY2d 773). “[A]n individual can have more than one residence for insurance coverage purposes” *(Walburn v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,*215 AD2d 837, 838), and respondent established as a matter of law that he was a resident of his mother’s household. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J. — Arbitration.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.
## **Exhibit 31.2**

##  

## Louisville Gas andElectric Company

##  

I,S. Bradford Rives, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Louisville Gas andElectric Company;

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

 

a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

 

5.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date:  March 29, 2006

 
| /s/ S. Bradford Rives |   |
|-----------------------|--------|

S.Bradford Rives

ChiefFinancial Officer

 

155

----
#### TICHY v DAYTON (city)

Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Montgomery Co

No 899.

Decided July 3, 1929

F. W. ,and F. G. Krehbiel, Dayton, for Tichy.

Lon Volz, Dayton, for City.

KUNKLE, J.

We have read the record in this case and find • that the- case resolved itself largely into a question of credibility of the witnesses. That is a question which was peculiarly within the province of the trial court. He saw the witnesses and had an opportunity to observe their demeanor when on the witness stand, and was therefore in a better position to determine the weight which should be given their testimony.

If the testimony of the police officers is believed, then the plaintiff in error was in possession of the whiskey in question and was found by them in the act of dumping the same in the sink in question.

It is suggested that the husband should have been arrested instead of his wife, the plaintiff in error. He was not found in the possession of any whiskey. If the testimony of the policemen is believed, then the plaintiff in error was the one who was found in possession of the whiskey. The premises in question constitute a Soft Drink establishment and a residence.

It appears from the testimony of the police officers that the plaintiff in error was also active in the businees end of this combination. ' We think the facts as testified to by the police officers clearly distinguish this case from that of Watson vs. State. (6 Abs 167) decided by the Court of Appeals of Mahoning County, and cited by counsel.

If the testimony of plaintiff in error and certain of her witnesses is believed, then she should not have been convicted. If the testimony of police officers is accepted, then we think the court was justified in finding the plaintiff in error guilty of being in possession of the whiskey in question. As above stated, the credibility of witnesses is peculiarly within the province of the trial court.

*518Under all the facts disclosed by the record, we would not feel warranted in holding that the judgment of the lower court was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas will be affirmed and cause remanded.

Allread and Hornbeck, JJ, concur.
#### Clark *vs.*Parker and Lawrence.

ALBANY,

June, 1838

Where a maker and endorser of a note are sued in one action, an affidavit of merits by the maker will not prevent an inquest against the endorser, unless it appear that the defence of both is identical.

The plaintiff may take an inquest against one of the parties in such case, with out making up and filing a new circuit roll; the severance may be sug. gested on the judgment roll.

Action against the *maker*and *endorser*of a promissory note. At the circuit the *maker*filed an affidavit of merits, but there being no affidavit by the endorser, the plaintiff proceeded and took an inquest against him.

*J. Holmes,*

for the defendants, moved to set aside the inquest, and insisted among other things that the plaintiff could not sever the action and proceed against one of the parties without making up and filing a new circuit roll&emdash;the roll filed having been made up against both defendants. Statutes, session of 1835, p. 248, § *2.*

*A. J. Colvin,*contra.

*By the Court,*

Bronson, J.

Where, as in this case, different parties to a bill or note are sued in one action, an affidavit made by one of the parties that the defendants have a good defence on the merits, is not sufficient for the other *126party. This has been repeatedly adjudged, though there is no, reported case on " the point. The *maker*may have a good defence while the right of action against the *endorser*is unquestionable. Had the affidavit stated that the defence of the maker .and endorser was the same it would perhaps have been sufficient. *Ontario Bank*v. *Baxter,*6 Cowen, 395.

In actions under this statute it has also been held, that where one of several parties to the note or bill files an affidavit of merits at the circuit, the plaintiff may sever the action and proceed against the other party. Statutes of 1835, p. 248, § 2. The language of the statute is that there may be a severance where the trial or hearing is put off by any of the parties to the bill or note. When the cause is noticed as an inquest, filing an affidavit of merits has the effect of putting off the trial or hearing, and we think the statute should be liberally construed in favor of the right of the plaintiff to sever the action whenever he meets with an obstacle to his progress, which is not common to all the parties sued on the instrument.

It appeared by the circuit roll filed that the action was against the maker'and endorser of a note, and I think it was not necessary for the plaintiff to make up a new and separate circuit roll against the endorser before proceeding to take an inquest against him. Proper suggestions on the judgment record will show that all was regular.

Motion denied.
MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA-2015-3877

Docket Number

2015-SW-039-AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. AS332-05.01.02, Revision 0, dated July 22, 

2015

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region

Rules Docket

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663

Fort Worth, Texas 76137

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.
§ 1902.19 Notice of hearing. ( a ) Whenever the Assistant Secretary has issued no previous notice concerning the plan, or only informal rule making proceedings have been conducted concerning the plan, the Assistant Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register an appropriate notice concerning the plan and provide an opportunity for formal hearing and decision on the possible rejection of the plan and on any subsidiary issues. The notice also shall set forth such rules as may be necessary so as to assure compliance with 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557 in the conduct of the proceeding. The time for filing proposed findings and conclusions and exceptions to any tentative decision shall be set forth in the notice.
( b ) Not later than 5 days following the publication of the notice in the Federal Register, required by paragraph (a) of this section, the applying State agency shall publish, or cause to be published, within the State reasonable notice containing the same information.
§ 15.301 What office is responsible for determining liability in claims arising out of the Job Corps? ( a ) The Director of the appropriate Job Corps Regional Office is responsible for claims not cognizable under the FTCA pursuant to the WIA arising out of the operation of the Job Corps involving loss or damage to persons or personal property of students of Job Corps Centers that do not exceed $300.
( b ) The Regional Solicitor is responsible for claims not cognizable under the FTCA pursuant to the WIA arising out of the operation of the Job Corps involving loss or damage to persons or personal property of students of Job Corps Centers for claims exceeding $300.
( c ) The Regional Solicitor is responsible for all FTCA claims involving damage to persons or property arising out of an act or omission of a Job Corps student or Federal employee that do not exceed $25,000 and do not involve a new point of law or a question of policy.
( d ) All remaining claims with aggregate damages of $25,000 or more are the responsibility of the Counsel for Claims and Compensation.
( e ) The Job Corps Regional Office Director, the Regional Solicitors and the Associate Regional Solicitors are authorized to consider, determine and settle claims filed under this subpart that arose within their respective jurisdictions.
#### SCHULER & McDONALD, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 42468.

Decided November 1, 1937]

*632
      *Mr. Fred B. Rhodes*for the plaintiff. *Messrs. Cooper B. Rhodes*and *Robert F. Klepinger*were on the brief.

*Mr. Frank J.*Keating, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General 8am E.*Whitaker, for the defendant.

*642Whaley, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant on July 27, 1928, for the construction of a bridge and culvert in the Yosemite National Park. The contract contained the usual provisions for periodic payments during the progress of the work and for liquidated damages in the event the work was not completed within the period specified, which ended December 7, 1928.

At the same time that the work under the contract involved in this proceeding was being carried on, work on other contracts was likewise being carried on, payment for which was being made out of general appropriations. On November 13, 1928, the defendant issued a formal shutdown order stopping the work pursuant to notice to that effect given to the plaintiff on October 1,1928. Subsequently the Secretary of the Interior reported that “work under the existing contracts progressed so rapidly that in September 1928 estimates were presented for payment that almost completely exhausted the available cash. It was therefore necessary on October 1 to order all work under the roads and trails appropriation stopped.”

The plaintiff resumed work on April 15, 1929, and completed it on August 16, 1929. Except for the delays caused by the defendant in clearing the site and the suspension caused by the shut-down order, plaintiff could have finished all work within the time provided in the contract. Considerable damages resulted to the plaintiff from the suspension of the work caused by the defendant’s inability to make payment of regular progress estimates.

*643The facts show, and a commissioner of this court has found, that the plaintiff has proved damages to the extent of $4,451.13. The record does not show that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount withheld as liquidated damages. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant has excepted to the commissioner’s report.

The only question in this case is whether the defendant breached its contract in suspending the work because of the lack of funds and, if so, what damages the plaintiff has suffered.

It has been repeatedly held by this court—

> that persons contracting with the Government for partial service under general appropriations are not bound to know the condition of the appropriation account at the Treasury or on the contract book of the Department.

See *Myerle, Exr.*v. *United States,*33 C. Cls. 1, 25, and cases: cited, and *Karno-Smith Company*v. *United States,*84 C. Cls. 110.

The Government having failed to carry out its part of the contract, and the plaintiff having suffered damages as a result thereof, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of damages proved.

Judgment will be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $4,451.13. It is so ordered.

Williams, *Judge;*Littleton, *Judge;*Green, *Judge;*and Booth, *Chief Justice,*concur.
EX-4.2







Exhibit 4.2




	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	CONCORD MEDICAL SERVICES HOLDINGS LIMITED	 	 
	Certificate
	 	(the “Company”)
	 	Ordinary Shares
	Number
	 	 	 	[  ]
	[  ]
	 	INCORPORATED IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS UNDER THE COMPANIES LAW	 	 
	 
	 	(AS AMENDED OR REVISED FROM TIME TO TIME)	 	 






THE AUTHORISED CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY IS US$[  ] DIVIDED INTO [  ] ORDINARY SHARES

OF A NOMINAL OR PAR VALUE OF US$0.0001 EACH (the “Ordinary Shares”)



THIS CERTIFIES THAT [shareholder] of [address] is the registered holder of [number of ordinary shares] Ordinary Shares of
par value US$0.0001 each subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company, and transferable only on the
book of the Company by the holder hereof in person or by Attorney in accordance with the Memorandum and the Articles of
Association of the Company and upon surrender of this certificate to the Company.



EXECUTED on behalf of the Company this                      day of                      20[ ].




	 	 	 
	 


	 	 
	Director/Secretary
	 	 





THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, OR
APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS. THE SECURITIES MAY NOT BE OFFERED FOR SALE, SOLD, TRANSFERRED OR ASSIGNED (I) IN THE ABSENCE OF
(A) AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT FOR THE SHARES UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, AND APPLICABLE STATE
SECURITIES LAWS OR (B) AN OPINION OF COUNSEL, IN A GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE FORM, THAT REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER SAID
ACT AND APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS OR (II) UNLESS SOLD PURSUANT TO RULE 144 UNDER SAID ACT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-27-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-27-1999
<CASH>                                             710
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,536
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,830
<PP&E>                                          10,778
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,864
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,166
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,691
<BONDS>                                          1,538
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              984
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           493
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,486
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,166
<SALES>                                         33,674
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,674
<CGS>                                           26,319
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,319
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 293
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    798
<INCOME-TAX>                                       230
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                518
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       518
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.01
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-29-2000
<CASH>                                         372,552
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,134
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    619,153
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,043,727
<PP&E>                                       1,376,379
<DEPRECIATION>                                 485,917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,969,714
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          769,023
<BONDS>                                        404,444
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,278
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,079
<OTHER-SE>                                     790,890
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,969,714
<SALES>                                      5,924,124
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,924,124
<CGS>                                        4,953,374
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,953,374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,226,576
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              59,839
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (315,665)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (315,665)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (315,665)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.08)


</TABLE>