alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### TURNIPSEED et v. BOWNESS

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Ross County

Decided April 23, 1929

Garrett S Claypool, Chillicothe, and Luther L Boger, Columbus, for Turnipseed, et.

Walter W Boulger and Willard C Walter, both of Chillicothe, for Bowness.

HOUCK, J.

The only substantial question raised here is that as the case was being concluded the plaintiff testified on re-cross examination that he had a month to month contract and was to receive a five dollar bonus on pups which he raised to maturity and that this contract was terminable at the will of either party. The witness further testified that these pups would have been matured in October. The testimony of the plaintiff in this behalf was that “It would be a month to month contract.” He was then referring to the original arrangement made between the parties in 1926 and at most w,as giving his views of the proper legal description of the engagement into which he had entered, which of course v(ould not be binding upon him nor upon this court so far as it was a legal interpretation of the *311circumstances. We do not think, however, that he testified in any place that the entire arrag.ement was one from month to month. He testifies that he was to be paid at the rate of $125.00 per month and that w,as his basic wage. His testimony as a whole shows, however, that he was entitled to annual compensation figured upon the result of the year’s work. Some question might have been made as to when the year began and ended. The parties have, however, given a practical construction to the contract which settles the question as between them. No extra compensation was paid the plaintiff or claimed by him for the foxes raised to maturity in the year 1926 altho the plaintiff was .their custodian from August to October. The plaintiff was paid the additional compensation for 1927, during which year he worked thru both the breeding season and the puphood season. Now the failure of the defendant to pay extra compensation the first year and the failure of the plaintiff to claim for that year seems to show that the important and delicate season in this business is the breeding season, and during, that season the defendants had the benefit of the plaintiff’s services. The only question that remained then was whether or not plaintiff should receive his additional compensation for 1928 when he had conducted the business thru the delicate season or whether he should be deprived thereof by the arbitrary conduct of the defendants in dismissing him. This was the question submitted to the jury. It is not disputed that it was fairly submitted. The jury found that there were no sufficient grounds for the plaintiff’s discharge, that he had brought the mother foxes to the point where two hundred and fifteen pups were produced, and that he might well have brought them to maturity if he had been given the opportunity to which he was entitled.

Mauck and Lemert, JJ, coenur.
#### § 1602.37 Additional reporting requirements.

The Commission reserves the right to require reports, other than that designated as the “State and Local Government Information Report EEO-4,” about the employment practices of individual political jurisdictions or group of political jurisdictions whenever, in its judgment, special or supplemental reports are necessary to accomplish the purposes of title VII, the ADA, GINA, or the PWFA. Any system for the requirement of such reports will be established in accordance with the procedures referred to in section 709(c) of title VII, section 107 of the ADA, section 207(a) of GINA, or section 104 of the PWFA and as otherwise prescribed by law.

[38 FR 12605, May 14, 1973, as amended at 56 FR 35756, July 26, 1991; 74 FR 63983, Dec. 7, 2009; 89 FR 11170, Feb. 14, 2024]
§ 102.54 Issuance of compliance specification; consolidation of complaint and compliance specification. ( a ) If it appears that controversy exists with respect to compliance with a Board order which cannot be resolved without a formal proceeding, the Regional Director may issue and serve on all parties a compliance specification in the name of the Board. The specification will contain or be accompanied by a Notice of Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge at a specific place and at a time not less than 21 days after the service of the specification.
( b ) Whenever the Regional Director deems it necessary to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act or to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, the Regional Director may issue a compliance specification, with or without a notice of hearing, based on an outstanding complaint.
( c ) Whenever the Regional Director deems it necessary to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act or to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, the Regional Director may consolidate with a complaint and Notice of Hearing issued pursuant to § 102.15 a compliance specification based on that complaint. After opening of the hearing, the Board or the Administrative Law Judge, as appropriate, must approve consolidation. Issuance of a compliance specification is not a prerequisite or bar to Board initiation of proceedings in any administrative or judicial forum which the Board or the Regional Director determines to be appropriate for obtaining compliance with a Board order.
Docket No: FAA - 2015 - 3147 Dir ID: 2014 - NM - 094 - AD
# EUR-Lex - 31996F1023(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996F1023(01)

**Council Act of 27 September 1996 drawing up a Protocol to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests **

*
Official Journal C 313 , 23/10/1996 P. 0001 - 0001 *

COUNCIL ACT of 27 September 1996 drawing up a Protocol to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (96/C 313/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article K.3 (2) (c) thereof,

Whereas, for the purposes of achieving the objectives of the Union, the Member States regard the combating of crime damaging the European Communities' financial interests as a matter of common interest coming under the cooperation provided for in Title VI of the Treaty;

Whereas by its Act of 26 July 1995 the Council drew up, as a first agreement, the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests which is intended more specifically to combat fraud that damages those interests;

Whereas, as a second stage, this Convention needs to be supplemented by a protocol directed in particular at acts of corruption that involve national and Community officials and damage or are likely to damage the European Communities' financial interests;

DECIDES that the Protocol, the text of which is set out in the Annex hereto and which is signed today by the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the Union, is hereby drawn up;

RECOMMENDS that it be adopted by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Done at Brussels, 27 September 1996.

For the Council

The President

M. LOWRY
§ 100.616 Payment collection. ( a ) The NLRB shall make every effort to collect a claim in full before it becomes delinquent, but will consider arranging for payment in regular installments consistent with 31 CFR 901.8, if the debtor furnishes satisfactory evidence that he is unable to pay the debt in one lump sum. Except for a claim described in 5 U.S.C. 5514, all installment payment arrangements must be in writing and require the payment of interest, penalties, and other administrative costs. If possible, the installment payments should be sufficient in size and frequency to liquidate the debt in three years or less.
( b ) If a debt is paid in one lump sum after it becomes delinquent, the NLRB shall impose charges for interest, penalties, and administrative costs as specified in 31 CFR 901.9.
( c ) Payment of a debt is made by check, electronic funds transfer, draft, or money order payable to the National Labor Relations Board. Payment should be made to the National Labor Relations Board, Finance Branch, 1099 14th Street NW., Washington, DC 20570, unless payment is— ( 1 ) Made pursuant to arrangements with the Department of Justice;
( 2 ) Ordered by a Court of the United States; or
( 3 ) Otherwise directed in any other part of this chapter.
§ 35.40 Functional test. The variable-pitch propeller system must be subjected to the applicable functional tests of this section. The same propeller system used in the endurance test (§ 35.39) must be used in the functional tests and must be driven by a representative engine on a test stand or on an airplane. The propeller must complete these tests without evidence of failure or malfunction. This test may be combined with the endurance test for accumulation of cycles. ( a ) Manually-controllable propellers. Five hundred representative flight cycles must be made across the range of pitch and rotational speed.
( b ) Governing propellers. Fifteen hundred complete cycles must be made across the range of pitch and rotational speed.
( c ) Feathering propellers. Fifty cycles of feather and unfeather operation must be made.
( d ) Reversible-pitch propellers. Two hundred complete cycles of control must be made from lowest normal pitch to maximum reverse pitch. During each cycle, the propeller must run for 30 seconds at the maximum power and rotational speed selected by the applicant for maximum reverse pitch.
( e ) An analysis based on tests of propellers of similar design may be used in place of the tests of this section.
[Amdt. 35-8, 73 FR 63349, Oct. 24, 2008]
§ 71.13 Classification of Air Traffic Service (ATS) routes. Unless otherwise specified, ATS routes are classified as follows: ( a ) In subpart A of this part: ( 1 ) Jet routes.
( 2 ) Area navigation (RNAV) routes.
( b ) In subpart E of this part: ( 1 ) VOR Federal airways.
( 2 ) Colored Federal airways. ( i ) Green Federal airways.
( ii ) Amber Federal airways.
( iii ) Red Federal airways.
( iv ) Blue Federal airways.
( 3 ) Area navigation (RNAV) routes.
[Doc. No. FAA-2003-14698, 68 FR 16947, Apr. 8, 2003]
From: Parker Richard [mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 1:08 PM 

To: Wes Patterson 

Cc: Rosenstock, Steven; ahofmann@publicpower.org; Brian Coffey; brian.kaja@ge.com; 

bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; Bob Smith; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; 

Michael Rivest; rgreeson@federalpacific.com; rick.anderson@faypwc.com; Nadel, Steve; 

tballo@earthjustice.org 

Subject: Re: DOE Negotiating Committee Meeting 

I would be interested in the Advocates take on this. Though i am naturally curious, my gut 

instinct is that field trip idea is worth pursuing iff physically seeing the unit will help us write the 

specification. otherwise our incredibly scarce time might be better spent on writing the spec and 

the sub-standard. 

Richard 

 

Sent from my iPhone 

On Nov 21, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Wes Patterson <wes.patterson@us.abb.com> wrote: 

Thanks Steve 

Richard - is this something worth pursing? 

Best regards Wes 

"Rosenstock, Steven" <SRosenstock@eei.org>

11/21/2011 09:59 AM 

To Wes Patterson/SouthBoston/USTRA/ABB@ABB, "Bob Smith" 

<bsmith@federalpacific.com>

cc <rgreeson@federalpacific.com>, <ahofmann@publicpower.org>, 

<brian.coffey@navigant.com>, <brian.kaja@ge.com>, 

<bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com>, <chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com>, 

<richardparkerdc@gmail.com>, <rick.anderson@faypwc.com>, "Nadel, 

Steve" <snadel@aceee.org>, <tballo@earthjustice.org>, 

<john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov>, <mrivest@navigant.com> Subject RE: DOE Negotiating Committee Meeting

PEPCO is the electric distribution company that serves Washington DC. I can send an 

e-mail or make a call to see if they would be able to arrange a visit (however, there are 

probably strict security and safety protocols that would have to be followed). 

 
Steve Rosenstock 

Manager, Energy Solutions 

Edison Electric Institute 

srosenstock@eei.org 

202-508-5465 

 

<mime-attachment.gif> 

 

From: Wes Patterson [mailto:wes.patterson@us.abb.com] 

Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 7:40 AM

To: Bob Smith

Cc: rgreeson@federalpacific.com; ahofmann@publicpower.org; brian.coffey@navigant.com; 

brian.kaja@ge.com; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; 

richardparkerdc@gmail.com; rick.anderson@faypwc.com; Nadel, Steve; Rosenstock, Steven; 

tballo@earthjustice.org; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; mrivest@navigant.com

Subject: RE: DOE Negotiating Committee Meeting 

 

Hi Bob 

Your suggestion that we might try to have the committee look a network feeding one of our meeting 

locations is quite good. 

I have copied Richard and some others to see if they have an interest. 

============================

Suggestion from Bob Smith:

"One stupid idea:   I suppose that at least one of our next meetings will be in a building served by a network

transformer.  More than likely I could get someone from the local utility to open a sidewalk vault and go over the

components in the vault needed to supply uninterruptible power to our building."   

============================ 

Best regards

Wes
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Indian Affairs 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of amendment to approved Tribal-State Compact. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Pursuant to Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), (Pub. L. 100-497), 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish, in the                         **Federal Register**                        , notice of approved Tribal-State Compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, through his delegated authority, has approved the Amendment to the Tribal State Off-Track Wagering Compact between the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and the State of Oklahoma, which was executed on April 6, 2000.                     

# DATES:

This action is effective May 12, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George T. Skibine, Director, Indian Gaming Management Staff, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20240, (202) 219-4066. 

Dated: May 3, 2000. 

Kevin Gover, 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 00-11942 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
§ 1450.23 Deduction from pay. ( a ) Deduction by salary offset, from an employee's current disposable pay, shall be subject to the following conditions: ( 1 ) Ordinarily, debts to the United States should be collected in full, in one lump-sum. This will be done when funds are available. However, if funds are unavailable for payment in one lump sum, or if the amount of the debt exceeds 15 percent of disposable pay for an officially established pay interval, collection will normally be made in installments.
( 2 ) The installments shall not exceed 15 percent of the disposable pay from which the deduction is made, unless the employee has agreed in writing to the deduction of a greater amount.
( 3 ) Deduction will generally commence with the next full pay interval (ordinarily the next biweekly pay period) following written consent by the employee to salary offset, waiver of hearing, or the decision issued by the hearing officer.
( 4 ) Installment deductions must be made over a period not greater than the anticipated period of employment except as provided in § 1450.24.
#### E. D. Hobbs, *Plaintiff in Error, v.*John K. Cheyney, *Defendant in Error.*

Where a motion for a new trial is made and. the trial Judge states that he does not think the verdict is sustained by a preponderance of the evidence, and grants the motion, and no such preponderance of the evidence appears as would show an abuse of the Judge’s discretion, his ruling will not be held reversible error.

This case was decided by Division B.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*Hilton 8. Hampton,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Wall & McKay,*for Defendant in Error.

*215Hocker, J.

— The plaintiff in error sued the defendant in error in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County for commissions which plaintiff alleges was due him by the defendant for procuring a purchaser • for certain lands placed by the latter in the hands of the former for sale, but defendant declined to carry out the agreement made with the plaintiff. The action is based on the alleged breach of this agreement. On the trial there was a verdict for the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was made containing several grounds, which motion was granted. The trial Judge states in granting the motion that he did not think the verdict was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence, and that the jury did not regard the instructions as to the necessary constituents of a binding contract.

There was no substantial testimony as to the alleged agreement between the parties, except that of the parties themselves, and they are in conflict as to whether the alleged agreement or contract was ever made.

In support of the ground of the newly discovered evidence, an affidavit was filed tending to contradict in one particular the testimony of the plaintiff. We can discover no such preponderance of the weight of the evidence as would show an abuse of discretion by the trial judge in granting the motion.

Where a motion for a new trial is granted by the Circuit Court the presumption is, that it was properly granted. Farrell v. Solary, 43 Fla. 124, Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Wade, 49 Fla. 179, 38 South. Rep. 49; Allen v. Lewis, 43 Fla. 301, 31 South. Rep. 286; Jones v. Jacksonville Electric Co., 56 Fla. 452, 47 South. Rep. 1; Clary v. Isom, 55 Fla, 384, 45 South Rep 994; Tampa Water Works Co. v. Mugge, 60 Fla. 263, 53 South. Rep. 943.

*216The judgment below is affirmed.

Taylor and Parkhill, J. J., concur;

Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur in the opinion.
§ 13.23 Deductions. The contractor may make deductions from the pay and benefits of an employee who is using paid sick leave only if such deduction qualifies as a: ( a ) Deduction required by Federal, State, or local law, such as Federal or State withholding of income taxes;
( b ) Deduction for payments made to third parties pursuant to court order;
( c ) Deduction directed by a voluntary assignment of the employee or his or her authorized representative;
( d ) Deduction for the reasonable cost or fair value, as determined by the Administrator, of furnishing such employee with “board, lodging, or other facilities,” as defined in 29 U.S.C. 203(m) and 29 CFR part 531;
( e ) Deduction, to the extent permitted by law, for the purpose of recouping pay and benefits provided for paid sick leave as to which the contractor retroactively denied the employee's request pursuant to § 13.5(e)(3)(iii) or because the contractor approved the use of the paid sick leave based on a fraudulent request.
#### § 103.3 Horseracing and dogracing industries.

The Board will not assert its jurisdiction in any proceeding under sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act involving the horseracing and dogracing industries.

[38 FR 9507, Apr. 17, 1973]
#### § 91.853 Final compliance: Civil subsonic airplanes.

Except as provided in § 91.873, after December 31, 1999, no person shall operate to or from any airport in the contiguous United States any airplane subject to § 91.801(c), unless that airplane has been shown to comply with Stage 3, Stage 4, or Stage 5 noise levels.

[Docket FAA-2015-3782, Amdt. 91-349, 82 FR 46132, Oct. 4, 2017]
exv10w1





Exhibit 10.1


	 	 	 	 	 
	FIFTH THIRD BANK
 1850 EAST
PARIS GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49546



	 	FIFTH THIRD BANK LOGO
	COMMUNITY SHORES BANK

CORPORATION

 1030 W
NORTON AVE 

MUSKEGON
MI 49441-4108



	 	 	 	 
	
	 	Notice Date:

Loan No:
	 	September 22, 2009

905681912-18






Important Information About Your Commercial Loan




Dear COMMUNITY SHORES BANK,



As you know, the maturity date of your note is September 1, 2009. So that we are able to fully
process your renewal request without any inconvenience or disruption to you, we have
extended the maturity date of your note for up to an additional ninety (90) days. No action is
required on your part in connection with this temporary extension; however, please continue to make
your regular interest and/or principal payments under the note.



During the
term of this temporary extension,
the terms and conditions of your current loan
documents still apply. To the extent required, additional documents may be prepared for your signature at a later date when
and if your renewal request has been approved.



Thank you for your continued business with Fifth Third Bank.




	 	 	 	 	 
	Sincerely,





DENNIS SCHICHTEL

Commercial Banking Division

 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 



Member
FDIC.  Equal Housing Lender. Fifth Third and Fifth Third Bank are registered service marks of Fifth Third Bancorp.
<PAGE>

[INNES STREET FINANCIAL CORPORATION'S LETTERHEAD]

December 20, 1999

Branch Chief
Division of Corporate Finance
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20549

Re:  Innes Street Financial Corporation Form 10-KSB

Dear Sir or Madam:

The financial statements contained in the Form 10-KSB reflect no changes from
the preceding year in any accounting principles or practices, or in the method
of applying any such principles or practices. During 1999, the Company applied
the disclosure requirement under accounting pronouncement, SFAS No.131,
Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ronald E. Bostian

Ronald E. Bostian
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 415.113 Launch personnel certification program. ( a ) A safety review document must describe how the applicant will satisfy the personnel certification program requirements of § 417.105 of this chapter and identify by position those individuals who implement the program.
( b ) An applicant's safety review document must contain a copy of its documentation that demonstrates how the launch operator implements the personnel certification program.
( c ) An applicant's safety review document must contain a table listing each hazardous operation or safety critical task that certified personnel must perform. For each task, the table must identify by position the individual who reviews personnel qualifications and certifies personnel for performing the task.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4


        Mr. Calheno's Employment Agreement is the same as the Employment 
Agreement in Exhibit 10.2, which is incorporated herein by reference except as 
to: (i) the name of the signatory, which is Agostino J. Calheno; (ii) the 
position in Section 1, which is Senior Vice President; (iii) the signatory for 
the Company, which is Cornelius D. Mahoney; (iv) the guarantor for the Company, 
which is Cornelius D. Mahoney; and (v) the amount of the base salary in Section 
3(a), which is $115,000.