alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Elbert W. Hawxhurst, Resp’t, *v.*Thomas J. Ritch, Jr., as Administrator, etc., App’lt.

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

*Filed June 28, 1889.)*

1. Promissory note—Consideration—Burden op proof.

This is a proceeding under the statute to establish a claim, based on a note held by plaintiff against defendant as administrator of his father’s estate. The note states that it was given for value received. The defense is want of consideration. *Held,*that the burden of proof is on the administrator to show that it was given for nothing.

*%*Same—What sufficient consideration.

A note given for an amount ascertained to be due the payee by reason of the maker selling personal property belonging to the former without notice and without permission is based upon sufficient consideration.

Appeal from a judgment entered on a referee’s report, and from an order granting costs.

This is a proceeding under the statute to establish a claim held by plaintiff against the administrator of his father’s estate. The claim is based on a note made by defendant’s testator. The defense was that the note was without consideration.

*E. G. Bewail,*for resp’t; *George C. Brainerd,*for app’lt.

Barnard, P. J.

The signature of the deceased to the note presumably made out a consideration for the paper.

It stated that it was given for value received, and that was sufficient to throw upon the administrator the burden of proving that it was given for nothing.

The cross-examination of the claimant makes out an abundant consideration. The deceased had a title to a piece of land in his own name, which really belonged to himself and the claimant together. The plaintiff had personal property on the farm, and the deceased sold the farm without notice to him, and thereby occasioned loss on the sale of the *730plaintiff’s personal property by reason of its forced sale out of season.

The deceased and the claimant went over the items of loss together, “and they agreed upon the amount due.” The amount was $550, out of a claim of $852.35. The note was given for the sum of $550. The note rests upon as sure a foundation as if the father to give $550 for the right to sell a farm occupied by his son, and in which he was a half owner, without a formal title at a time when the sale would be beneficial to the father, and injurious to the son.' The costs were properly ordered under the case of *Denise*v. *Denise,*110 N. Y., 562; 18 N. Y. State Rep., 873.

The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.
#### § 1602.54 Additional reporting requirements.

The Commission reserves the right to require reports, other than that designated as the Higher Education Staff Information Report EEO-6, about the employment practices of private or public institutions of higher education 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.

[40 FR 25189, June 12, 1975, as amended at 56 FR 35756, July 26, 1991; 74 FR 63983, Dec. 7, 2009; 89 FR 11170, Feb. 14, 2024]
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund XII, L.P. (the Registrant) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief
Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|                                                      
|/S/    LEO F. WELLS, III                              
|                                                      
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief Executive
Officer May 10, 2004



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|                                                        
|/S/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                              
|                                                        
|Douglas P. Williams Chief Financial
Officer May 10, 2004
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 8139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3306]

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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

Institute of Museum and Library Services; Sunshine Act Meeting of 
the National Museum and Library Services Board

AGENCY: Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), NFAH.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the agenda of the forthcoming meeting 
of the National Museum and Library Services Board. This notice also 
describes the function of the Board. Notice of the meeting is required 
under the Sunshine in Government Act.

Time and Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 from 9:30 a.m. until 1 p.m.

Agenda: Nineteenth Meeting of the National Museum and Library Services 
Board.

I. Welcome.
II. Approval of Minutes.
III. Financial Update.
IV. Legislative Update.
V. Board Program.
VI. Board Updates.
VII. Closing Remarks by the Director.
VIII. Adjourn.
    (Open to the Public.)

Place: The meetings will be held in the Room MO-9 of the Old Post 
Office, located at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Lyons, Director of Special 
Events and Board Liaison, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 
1800 M Street, NW., 9th Floor, Washington, DC, 20036. Telephone: (202) 
653-4676 or E-mail: elyons@imls.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Museum and Library Services 
Board is established under the Museum and Library Services Act, 20 
U.S.C. 9101 et seq. The Board advises the Director of the Institute on 
general policies with respect to the duties, powers, and authorities 
related to Museum and Library Services.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please 
contact: Institute of Museum and Library Services, 1800 M Street, NW., 
9th Fl., Washington, DC 20036. Telephone: (202) 653-4676; TDD (202) 
653-4614 at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: February 16, 2010.
Kate Fernstrom,
Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2010-3306 Filed 2-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7036-01-P
```
10-Q











Exhibit 10.1  



Summary of Directors
Ongoing Compensation 



Subject to a temporary reduction, as
more fully set forth below, as of September 30, 2009, our non-executive officer directors
receive cash compensation as follows: 



	 	 —	Annual
compensation of $10,000;






	 	      — 	Meeting
participation fee of $750 per in-person meeting; and






	 	—	For
meeting participation by telephone, $350 per meeting. 






If the compensation is paid in New
Israeli Shekels (“NIS”), the exchange rate of the directors’ fees used to
calculate the fees will be not less then $4.25 per NIS. In addition, we reimburse our
non-executive officer directors for expenses incurred in connection with attending board
meetings. 



As of May 2009 there was a reduction
of 25% of the directors’ cash compensation in effect for a period of one year. In
exchange for the reduction the directors were granted restricted shares of the
company’s common stock with an attributed value of $1.32 per share. 



In the event that the Company
receives non-dilutive amounts (excluding OCS grants, but including strategic deals), the
seven non-executive directors will be entitled to share a bonus that equals 2.5% of such
amount.
[Crim. No. 529.

Second Appellate District.

January 31, 1917.]

#### In the Matter of the Application of HUBERT MESSENHEIMER for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Municipal Corpobations — Discriminatory Ordinance.—Prisoner discharged on the authority of *Matter of Wisner, ante,*p. 637,

APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in *Matter of Wisner, a/nte,*p. 637.

Hutton & Williams, for Petitioner.

Charles W. Lyon, and Fredericks & Hanna, for Respondent.

JAMES, J.

In this matter petitioner was charged under the same ordinance and in like form as was the petitioner Wisner in the *habeas corpus*matter decided this day (Crim. No. 528), *ante,*p. 637, the only difference being that the petitioner here was charged with having played upon a different musical instrument from that used by said Wisner. What is said in the opinion in the matter of Wisner is applicable here. Upon the authority of that decision, it is ordered that petitioner be discharged from custody.

Conrey, P. J., concurred.

Shaw, J., concurred in the judgment.
800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

November 24, 2014 

Mr. Dennis Hall 

4816 Hickory Lane 

McHenry, IL 60051 

Dear Mr. Hall: 

This is in response to your letter dated August 25, 2014, posted to the public docket 

(No. FAA-2014-0725) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to initiate 

rulemaking to amend § 121.383(e)(1) of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). 

In your petition, you request an extension of the mandatory retirement age of commercial 

airline pilots to at least age 67. 

In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73, the FAA must use the following criteria when 

making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition 

for rulemaking: 

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise; 

2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 

3) The resources we have available to address these issues. 

Each year, the FAA prioritizes its rulemaking projects based on issues that are crucial to 

the safety of the aviation community and the traveling public to ensure the FAA delivers 

the most value to the aviation system. 

After reviewing your request based on the current priorities for the FAA and the 

guidelines found in § 11.73, we determined the issue you raised does not meet the criteria 

to pursue rulemaking at this time. However, your comments and arguments for the 

proposed rule change in your petition will be placed in a database, which we will 

examine when we consider future rulemaking. 
2

If the FAA does pursue rulemaking in this area in the future, you would be able to find 

out and track it through one of the two following websites: 

 For significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the Department of 

Transportation’s (DOT) website (http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report-onsignificant-rulemakings). 

 For non-significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the DOT’s semiannual regulatory agenda, through the Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affair’s (OIRA) Unified 

Agenda website (http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain). 

For the reasons above, we are dismissing your petition for rulemaking in accordance with 

14 CFR § 11.73. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Lirio Liu 

Director, Office of Rulemaking
#### ROBERTSON v. SMITH.

(Decided January 9, 1917.)

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. E. C. CROW.

Robert J. Wheeler, for appellant.

Jos. J. Robinson, for appellee.

BROWN, J.

Affirmed on certificate.
#### § 298.92 Enforcement.

In case of any violation of the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, or this part, or any other rule, regulation, or order issued under the Statute, the violator may be subject to a proceeding pursuant to section 46101 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII before the Department, or sections 46106 through 46108 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII before a U.S. District Court, as the case may be, to compel compliance therewith; or to civil penalties pursuant to the provisions of section 46301 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII; or, in the case of a willful violation, to criminal penalties pursuant to the provisions of section 46316 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII; or other lawful sanctions including revocation of operating authority.

[Doc. No. DOT-OST-2007-27057, 83 FR 46877, Sept. 17, 2018, as amended by DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019]
##### 



Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: November 8, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Richard WayneRichard WaynePresident (Principal Executive Officer)Date: November 8, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Edward F. MehmEdward F. MehmTreasurer (Principal Financial Officer) 28
#### HITE v HITE et

Ohio Supreme Court

No. 21258.

Decided Feb 27, 1929

Syllabus by

MARSHALL, CJ.

DECEDENTS’ ESTATES-Contracts (150 U2)

(220 D3) An assignment by an heir apparent or presumptive of his expectancy in the estate of an ancestor is invalid and unenforceable in an action at law, because such a contract lacks one of the essential elements of a valid contract, to wit, a lawful subject-matter.

Such a contract is contrary to the policy of our laws and not favored by our courts, because of the danger that one party is defenseless and exposed to the demands of the other under the pressure of necessity.

After the death of the ancestor and the inheritence has become absolute and definable a court _of equity will entertain jurisdiction of a suit to enforce performance of the contract and will decree performance if it is shown that no fraud or imposition has been practiced and that the contract was not made under pressure of necessity and that it is supported by an adequate consideration.

Kinkade, Jones, Day and Allen, JJ, concur. Robinson and Matthias, JJ. dissent.
#### § 93.80 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes special air traffic rules for aircraft operating in the Valparaiso, Florida, Terminal Area.

[Doc. No. FAA-2002-13235, 68 FR 9795, Feb. 28, 2003]
§ 1695.7 Petitions. ( a ) Any interested person may petition the Commission, in writing, for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a guidance. Such petition shall state the guidance, regulation, or rule, together with a statement of grounds in support of such petition.
( b ) Petitions may be filed with the EEOC, Office of Executive Secretariat, either electronically at the EEOC guidance portal, *http://www.eeoc.gov/guidance ,* or in hard copy to U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Executive Secretariat, 131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 20507.
( c ) Upon the filing of such petition, the Commission shall consider the same and may thereupon either grant or deny the petition in whole or in part, conduct an appropriate proceeding thereon, or make other disposition of the petition.
( d ) The Commission should respond to all petitions in a timely manner, but no later than 90 days after receipt of the petition, as to how it intends to proceed. Should the petition be denied in whole or in part, prompt notice shall be given of the denial, accompanied by a simple statement of the grounds unless the denial be self-explanatory.
( e ) The issuance, amendment, or repeal of a guidance in response to a petition shall be considered by the Commission pursuant to its regular procedures.
#### § 1404.2 Policy.

The labor policy of the United States promotes and encourages the use of voluntary arbitration to resolve disputes over the interpretation or application of collective bargaining agreements. Voluntary arbitration and fact-finding are important features of constructive employment relations as alternatives to economic strife.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. MG00-7-000]

      ( print page 31159)    
Take notice that on April 21, 2000, Texas Gas Transmission Corporation (Texas Gas) filed revised standards of conduct to reflect certain changes in office space shared with one of its marketing affiliates and to reflect certain changes in names and corporate organizational information since its previous standards of conduct filing in Docket No. MG98-5-000.

Texas Gas states that it has served copies of its revised standards of conduct upon each person designated on the official service list by the Secretary in the proceeding for Docket No. MG98-5-000.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, D.C., 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 or 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). All such motions to intervene or protest should be filed on or before May 25, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.ud/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).                

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-12218  Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JONATHAN E. HUGHES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3209

[April 11, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800(a) motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Paul L. Backman, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 03-004875CF10A.

Jonathan E. Hughes, Milton, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Matthew Steven 

Ocksrider, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm without comment the denial of appellant’s Florida Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. However, 

we reverse the order barring appellant from filing any further pro se 

pleadings. We find that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to 

give appellant a reasonable opportunity to respond to its order to show 

cause. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999); Davis v. State, 

198 So. 3d 995, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). The court entered the final order 

before appellant’s time to file a response had run and did not consider 

appellant’s timely-filed motion for an extension of time. On remand, the 

trial court is instructed to consider and rule on appellant’s motion for an 

extension of time to file a response to the order to show cause.

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

DAMOORGIAN, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *
2

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 91.169 IFR flight plan: Information required. ( a ) *Information required.* Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person filing an IFR flight plan must include in it the following information: ( 1 ) Information required under § 91.153 (a) of this part;
( 2 ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an alternate airport.
( b ) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if : ( 1 ) Part 97 of this chapter prescribes a standard instrument approach procedure to, or a special instrument approach procedure has been issued by the Administrator to the operator for, the first airport of intended landing; and
( 2 ) Appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a combination of them, indicate the following: ( i ) *For aircraft other than helicopters.* For at least 1 hour before and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation and the visibility will be at least 3 statute miles.
( ii ) *For helicopters.* At the estimated time of arrival and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 1,000 feet above the airport elevation, or at least 400 feet above the lowest applicable approach minima, whichever is higher, and the visibility will be at least 2 statute miles.
( c ) *IFR alternate airport weather minima.* Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may include an alternate airport in an IFR flight plan unless appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a combination of them, indicate that, at the estimated time of arrival at the alternate airport, the ceiling and visibility at that airport will be at or above the following weather minima: ( 1 ) If an instrument approach procedure has been published in part 97 of this chapter, or a special instrument approach procedure has been issued by the Administrator to the operator, for that airport, the following minima: ( i ) *For aircraft other than helicopters:* The alternate airport minima specified in that procedure, or if none are specified the following standard approach minima: ( A ) *For a precision approach procedure.* Ceiling 600 feet and visibility 2 statute miles.
( B ) *For a nonprecision approach procedure.* Ceiling 800 feet and visibility 2 statute miles.
( ii ) *For helicopters:* Ceiling 200 feet above the minimum for the approach to be flown, and visibility at least 1 statute mile but never less than the minimum visibility for the approach to be flown, and
( 2 ) If no instrument approach procedure has been published in part 97 of this chapter and no special instrument approach procedure has been issued by the Administrator to the operator, for the alternate airport, the ceiling and visibility minima are those allowing descent from the MEA, approach, and landing under basic VFR.
( d ) *Cancellation.* When a flight plan has been activated, the pilot in command, upon canceling or completing the flight under the flight plan, shall notify an FAA Flight Service Station or ATC facility.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-259, 65 FR 3546, Jan. 21, 2000]