alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Golson *v.*The State.

Crime.

(Decided January 9, 1917.

73 South. 753.)

Name; Idem Sonans. — The name Golson, and the name Gholston, are idem sonans. Although spelled differently, if names sound or are pronounced alike, and the attentive ear finds difficulty in distinguishing between them when.pronounced, they are regarded as similar, and the insertion of a letter makes an immaterial variance.

Appeal from Montgomery City Court.

Heard before Hon. Gaston Gunter..

Minnie Golson was convicted of crime and she appeals.

Affirmed.

L. A. Sanderson, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

PELHAM, P. J.

The defendant is indicted by the name of “Minnie Golson.” The plea in abatement for misnomer, which is based on the alleged fact that her true name was “Minnie Gholston,” was demurred to on the ground that the names “Golson” and “Gholston” are idem sonans. The court decided that the variance was not sufficient to support a plea in abatement on the ground of misnomer, and sustained the demurrers to the plea.

We think the trial court correct in its ruling. It is the familiar rule that the law does not regard the spelling so much *421as the sound of names, and that, by the doctrine of idem sonans, two names, although spelled differently, if they sound alike, or are pronounced alike, and the attentive ear finds difficulty in distinguishing between the two, are to be regarded as the same. Usually the insertion or omission of a “t” before thé ending “son” is held immaterial. — 29 Cyc. 275, and authorities cited in note 57. See the following cases, which will be found to support our holding: *Rooks v. State,*83 Ala. 79, 3 South. 720; *Burton v. State,*10 Ala. App. 214, 65 South. 91.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.
§ ̈¦15 

§ ̈¦15 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
 

HiLine District 

Fire Management Units (FMU)

Alternatives A & E
 

¬
 

Fire Management Unit 

RMP Boundary

Interstate 

Highway or State Route 

Towns 

Maps show the Fire Management

Units (FMUs) by category for

the planning area. Under

Category B, unplanned ignitions 

are likely to cause negative 

effects. Under Category C fire is

desired to manage ecosystems,

but current vegetative condition 

creates constraints on use. 

Boundaries are not intended to 

confer authority, responsibility,

or jurisdiction over lands and 

waters that are not administered

by the BLM. Boundaries reflect

the fact that these lands and 

waters are essential components 

of comprehensively managing

unplanned fires. 

Created by the Malta Field Office in December 2012 Albers Equal Area, NAD83, Meters 

A All b be er rt ta a

SSaass kka att cchheewwaann

Blackfeet Indian Glacier Reservation National Park 

£¤89

Browning Cut Bank 

S w e et G r a s s Hi l l s

232 

2 

Ft. Belknap B e a r s P a w Rocky Boy's

87 

Indian Reservat ian Reservat

")

£¤

£¤

H a v r e P r ai r i e P o t h ole s

Shelby Chinook M al ta P r 

r a a i r i e P o o t h o o l e s

Chester Havre 

Malta 

Ind ion ion 

Glasgow S u n P r ai r i e

66 

191 

L i t t l e Ro c ki e s

£¤

Fort Benton 

M al t a B r e a k s

CMR National

Wildlife Refuge 

")

Map 2.1 

Alternative A

(Current Management) 

0 25 50 1:1,750,000 

Miles 

Alternative

(Preferred)

E

A All b be er rt ta a SSaass kka att cchheewwaann

Glacier Blackfeet Indian

National Park Reservation 

£¤89

Browning 

Cut Bank 

S w e et G r a s s Hi l l s

Shelby 

")232

£¤

2 

Chester Havre

£¤

Rocky Boy's Ft. Belknap Malta Indian Reservation B Indian Reservation e a r s P a w

87

H a v r e P r ai r i e P ot h ol e s

Chinook M al ta P r 

r ai r i e P o o t h o o l e s

Su n Pr ai r i e Glasgow

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty

is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for

individual or aggregate use with other data, or for 

purposes not intended by the BLM. This map may not 

meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product 

was developed through digital means and information 

may be updated without notification. 

") £¤ 66 

191 

L i t t l e Ro c ki es

Fort Benton 

M al t a B r e a k s

CMR National

Wildlife Refuge
#### § 1410.9 Fees.

Upon request, the Service will provide a photostatic copy of the records to the individual to whom they pertain. There will be a charge of $.10 per page.
#### Alvin B. EANES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Inc *v.*Robert L. INMAN et al

5-5844

478 S.W. 2d 52

Opinion delivered March 27, 1972

[Rehearing denied April 24, 1972]

*Tanner & Wallace,*for appellant.

*Hale, Hale ir Fincher,*and *Macom, Moorhead*¿r *Green,*for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Alvin B. Eanes Development Co., Inc., a one man corporation owned by Alvin B. Eanes, entered into an oral contract with Robert L. In-man to construct a residence for the latter in Carlisle, Arkansas. Both Eanes and Inman admit that the agreement was reached in Inman’s dental lab but they disagree on the terms. Eanes contends that the agreement was cost plus ten percent profit, with the ten percent being limited to $5,000. Inman contends that the agreement was cost plus ten percent with the understanding that the total would not exceed $50,000.

Eanes brought this action against Robert L. Inman and Loretta G. Inman, his wife, and First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Stuttgart, alleging that the house cost $53,068.73, that the Inmans had paid only $50,000 and that he was entitled to a mechanics lien for the difference, plus his $5,000 fee, which would be superior to First Federal Savings’ lien. The Chancellor observed that both Eanes *238and Inman were reputed by the witnesses to be fine men, one a successful builder and the other a dentist, and being unable to determine whose version of the contract was correct, denied any relief to Eanes. Of course, Eanes as the plaintiff had the burden of persuasion. From the record we cannot say that the chancellor’s finding on the oral contract issue is contrary to a preponderance of the evidence.

The Inmans readily admit that they added some extras to the house plans as they went along for which they are obligated to pay, in addition to the $50,000. Eanes on the other hand admits that the Inmans are entitled to credits for light fixtures and some appliances. We have gone through the record and giving Eanes the benefit of every doubt, we find that we are unable to determine, without pure speculation, any amount for which Eanes should have judgment. Therefore, we must affirm on this issue also because the burden of proof was on Eanes to show the costs of the extras for which he was entitled to judgment.

The denial of a lien to Eanes moots the priority of liens issue between him and First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Stuttgart.

Affirmed.

Jones, J., not participating.
| (1) | The Report fully complies with      the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act      of 1934; and |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:      November 22, 2010                                |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                        |   |
| /s/      Alton L. Boynton                                   |   |
| Alton      L. Boynton                                       |   |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer                  |   |
| (Principal      Executive Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |

----
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 94 (Monday, May 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31058-31059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11841]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33872]


Alabama & Gulf Coast Railway LLC--Trackage Rights Exemption--The 
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company

    The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company has agreed to 
grant overhead trackage rights to Alabama & Gulf Coast Railway LLC 
(AGR) of Monroeville, AL, between the end of

[[Page 31059]]

AGR's line at milepost 776.10 near Kimbrough, AL, and a point of 
connection with the Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS) at milepost 
774.10 near Kimbrough, AL, a distance of approximately 2 miles in 
Wilcox County, AL.
    The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or shortly after 
May 4, 2000.
    The purpose of the trackage rights is to permit AGR to directly 
interchange traffic with NS for the handling of traffic to and from 
MacMillan, AL.
    As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the 
trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk 
and Western Ry. Co.--Trackage Rights--BN, 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as 
modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.-Lease and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 
(1980).
    This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If it contains 
false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. 
Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed 
at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically 
stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33872, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must 
be served on Fritz R. Kahn, 1920 N Street, NW., 8th Floor, Washington, 
DC 20036-1601.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at 
``WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.''

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
    Decided: May 5, 2000.

Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-11841 Filed 5-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
#### KAVAS v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9717.

Decided Feb 25, 1929

H. F. Glick, for Kavas.

J. M. Kovachy, Cleveland, for State.

VICKERY, PJ.

Had the man been .arrested and punished no punishment would have been too severe for him, but there is no evidence in this record to show that the woman was guilty of the offense charged in the affidavit; that is, that she was residing in a house for the purpose of prostitution and lewdness. On the contrary, the evidence shows that she was living in her husband’s home and the husband was present when the so-called lewdness took place.

We think there is a total absence of evidence to sustain the charge and the judgment will be reversed and the plaintiff in error discharged.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ, concur.
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 302.503 Contents and service of petition or complaint. ( a ) If a petition or complaint is filed it shall state the reasons why the rates, fares, or charges, or the classification, rule, regulation, or practice complained of are unlawful and shall support such reasons with a full factual analysis.
( b ) A petition or complaint shall be served by the petitioner or complainant upon the air carrier against whose tariff provision the petition or complaint is filed.
( c ) Answers to complaints, other than those filed under § 302.506, shall be filed within seven (7) working days after the complaint is filed.
#### STATE ex MICK v BURKE et

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21424.

Decided Apr 24, 1929

Syllabus by

JONES, J.

ACTIONS

(10 Q2)' The writ of quo warranto cannot be Utilized by an individual acting in his private relation for the purpose of nullifying corporate franchises or voiding a municipal charter.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS

(360 C2) The relator was elected to a municipal office in 1925. In the following year the municipality adopted a charter, under the provisions of which new offices were created and filled by the election of respondents in 1927, who jduly qualified therefor. The relator, under the provisions of Section 12307, General Code, then instituted his private action seeking, to oust the respondents from office, by assailing the validity of the charter election, on the ground that the charter was not adopted by a majority of the electors voting at the charter election, and offered proof sustaining his claim which the court excluded. Held: The court did not.err. While relator’s action ostensibly was one'to test his title to office, it was in fact an indirect and collateral attack upon corporate municipal functions and the legal existence and validity of the municipal charter. Section 12307, General Code, does not authorize a private relator to employ quo warranto for such purpose.

Marshall, CJ, Kinkade, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ, concur. Robinson, J, not participating.
Certification Statement

In compliance with requirements under 10 CFR 430.27, Samsung hereby certifies that all parties

noted below have been provided with a copy of Samsung’s Petition for Waiver and Application

for Interim Waiver.

The recipients of the notifications are as follows:

Michael L. Baroni

General Counsel

BSH Home Appliances Corporation

5551 McF adden Avenue

Huntington Beach, CA 92649

Ed Buckles

Senior Associate General Counsel

Electrolux North America, Inc.

20445 Emerald Parkway, S.W., Suite 250

Cleveland, OH 44135

Atul Vir

President

Equator

2801 W. Sam Houston Parkway N.

Houston, TX 77043

Bryce Wells

Marketing Manager

Fisher & Paykel Appliances

27 Hubble Street

Irvine, CA 92618

- 4209

Earl F. Jones

Senior Counsel

GE Consumer & Industrial

Appliance Park

AP2

- 225

Louisville, KY 40225Shariff Kan

Vice President

Haier America

1356 Broadway

New York, N Y 10018

Brad Michael

CEO & President

Heartland Appliances

1050 Fountain Street

North Cambridge, Ontario N3H4R7

Canada

Marc Perez

VP, North America

Liebherr Hausgerate

1015 Sutton Drive

Burlington, Ontario L7L5Z8

Canada

John Taylor

Vice President, Governmen t Relations

LG Electronics USA, Inc.

17 76 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006

Steve Polinski

Regulatory Affairs & Product Development Engineer

Meile, Inc.

Nine Independence Way

Princeton, NJ 08540

Gordon Stauffer

AGA Marvel

1260 E. Van Deinse Street

P.O. Box 400

Greenville, MI 48838

- 1376

Richard Miller

Vice President, Sales & Marketing

Sanyo Fisher Company

21605 Plummer Street

Chatsworth, CA 91311Ken Knudson

Product Compliance

Sub

- Zero Freezer Company, Inc.

4717 Hammersley Road

Madison, WI 53711

Philip Uihle in

CEO & President

U

- Line

8900 North 55 th Street

Milwaukee, WI 53223

Bill Crump

Director, Governmental Affairs

Viking Range Corporation

111 Front Street

Greenwood, MS 38930

J.B. Hoyt

Director, Government Relations

Whirlpool Corporation

2000 M

- 63

M ail Drop 3005

Benton Harbor, MI 49022

Joseph M. McGuire

President

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

1111 19 th St. NW , Suite 402

Washington

, DC 20036
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.40
                  AMENDMENT TO THE STRATEGIC ALLIANCE AGREEMENT

      This AMENDMENT TO THE STRATEGIC ALLIANCE AGREEMENT ("Amendment") is
executed to be effective this 28th day of February 2005, by and between Memory
Pharmaceuticals Corp. ("Memory"), and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Hoffmann-La
Roche Inc. (collectively, "Roche").

      WHEREAS, Memory and Roche have previously entered into a Strategic
Alliance Agreement (including its schedules and appendices) dated as of the 19th
day of August 2003, by and between Memory and Roche, as amended (the
"Agreement"), which sets forth the Parties' rights, duties and obligations under
the Agreement; and

      WHEREAS, Memory and Roche wish to amend Section 16.4 of the Agreement to
extend the time period during which Roche may exercise its right to elect not to
maintain its license rights;

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing promises and for good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency which is hereby
acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:

      1.    The fifth line of Section 16.4(a) shall be amended by deleting
            "thirty (30)" and replacing it with "sixty (60)".

      2.    Entire Agreement. This Amendment, along with the Agreement, shall
            constitute the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to
            the subject matter of the Agreement. All other terms of the
            Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. To the extent that
            there are any inconsistencies between the terms of the Agreement and
            the terms of this Amendment, this Amendment shall prevail in effect.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment to be
effective as of the day and year first above written.

MEMORY PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.             HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC.

By:    /s/ Tony Scullion                 By:   /s/ Dennis E. Burns
       ---------------------------             ----------------------------

                                         Title: Vice President Global Head
Title: Chief Executive Officer                  of Business Development
       ---------------------------             ----------------------------


                                         F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD

                                         By:   /s/ Mr. Stefan Arnold
                                               ----------------------------

                                         Title:   Legal Counsel
                                               ----------------------------


                                         By:   /s/ Dr. Peter Hug
                                               ----------------------------

                                         Title: Executive Vice President
                                                Pharma Partnering
                                               ----------------------------
Editorial Note on Part 47
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 47 appear at 75 FR 41979, July 20, 2010.

§ 47.5 Applicants. ( a ) A person who wishes to register an aircraft in the United States must submit an Aircraft Registration Application, AC Form 8050-1 under this part.
( b ) An aircraft may be registered only by and in the legal name of its owner.
( c ) 49 U.S.C. 44103(c), provides that registration is not evidence of ownership of aircraft in any proceeding in which ownership by a particular person is in issue. The FAA does not issue any certificate of ownership or endorse any information with respect to ownership on a Certificate of Aircraft Registration, AC Form 8050-3. The FAA issues a Certificate of Aircraft Registration, AC Form 8050-3 to the person who appears to be the owner on the basis of the evidence of ownership submitted pursuant to § 47.11 with the Aircraft Registration Application, or recorded at the Registry.
( d ) In this part, “owner” includes a buyer in possession, a bailee, or a lessee of an aircraft under a contract of conditional sale, and the assignee of that person.
[Amdt. 47-20, 44 FR 61939, Oct. 29, 1979, as amended by Amdt. 47-27, 70 FR 244, Jan. 3, 2005; Amdt. 47-29, 75 FR 41979, July 20, 2010]
(LOGO)
ERNST & YOUNG LLP

3900 One Williams Ctr. (74172)
P.O. Box 1529
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101

Phone:   918 560 3600
Fax:     918 560 3691

                      Report of Independent Accountants on
     Management's Assertion on Compliance with Minimum Servicing Standards
            Set Forth in the Uniform Single Attestation Program for
                                Mortgage Bankers

The Board of Directors
BOK Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries
  (including Bank of Oklahoma, N.A.)

We have examined  management's  assertion,  included in the accompanying  report
titled Report of Management on Compliance with Minimum  Servicing  Standards Set
Forth in the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers,  that Bank
of  Oklahoma's  Mortgage  Banking  Division (the  "Division")  complied with the
minimum  servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of
America's  Uniform  Single  Attestation  Program for Mortgage  Bankers  ("USAP")
during the year ended  December  31, 1998.  Management  is  responsible  for the
Division's compliance with those requirements.  Our responsibility is to express
an opinion on management's  assertion about the Division's  compliance  based on
our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis, evidence about the Division's compliance with those
requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered  necessary in
the circumstances.  We believe that our examination  provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal  determination on the
Division's compliance with specified requirements.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that the Division  complied  with the
aforementioned  requirements  during the year ended  December 31, 1998 is fairly
stated, in all material respects.

ERNST & YOUNG LLP

March 23, 1999