alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MONTGOMERY v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Scioto Co

Decided April 17, 1929

Ernest G Littleton for Montgomery.

Dustin W Gustin, Pros Atty, Portsmouth, for State.

*310MAUCK, J.

Section 12858 GC, under which this prosecution was had, makes it unlawful for one to knowingly and wilfully resist, obstruct or abuse an officer in the execution of his official duties.While the offense is generally described as resisting an officer it is apparent that our statute includes acts that do not constitute resistance. Resistance is a narrower term than either obstruct or abuse and proof of the charge of resisting an officer seems to require proof that the accused exercised some active and direct force toward the officer. 8 R. C. L. 327.

The Supreme Court of this state, in line with the authorities referred to, recognized this distinction between resistance and obstruction in Campf v. State, 80 O. S. 321.

It is accordingly clear enough that one may be guilty of obstructing an officer within the terms of Section 12858 GC. if he knowingly and wilfully impedes the officer in the execution of the latter’s official duties whether he employs any direct force on such officer or not. Upon the law of this case, as thus defined, the members of this court are in .agreement.

We are not in entire harmony, however, as to whether the proven facts made a case for the state.

There being no different views in this court upon any question of l.aw and it requiring three judges to concur in reversing, a judgment upon the weight of the evidence, and there not being three judges of the view that the judgment should be reversed upon that ground, it follows that the judgment is affirmed.

Houck, J, concurs. Lemert, J, dissents on weight of evidence.
#### § 100.618 Bankruptcy claims.

When the NLRB learns that a bankruptcy petition has been filed by a debtor, before proceeding with further collection action, the NLRB will immediately seek legal advice from the NLRB's Office of Special Counsel concerning the impact of the Bankruptcy Code on any pending or contemplated collection activities. After seeking legal advice from the NLRB's Office of Special Counsel, the NLRB will take any necessary action in accordance with the provisions of 31 CFR 901.2(h).
ex10_3.htm


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    EXHIBIT 10.3

    


    LETTER
OF REAFFIRMATION OF GENERAL SECURITY AGREEMENT

    


    As of
November 11, 2009

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              TO:

            	
              Manufacturers
      and Traders Trust Company

            


    

    
      	
               
      

            	
              One
      M & T Plaza, Buffalo, New York
14240

            


    

    


    Re: REAFFIRMATION
of General Security Agreements (collectively, the "Security Agreement") made by
EMERGING VISION, INC., OG ACQUISITION, INC., COMBINE BUYING GROUP, INC. AND
1725758 ONTARIO INC. D/B/A THE OPTICAL GROUP

    
      	
              to MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS
      TRUST COMPANY (the “Bank") dated as of August 7, 2007 in connection
      with loans made to EMERGING VISION, INC.
      (“Borrower”) by Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (collectively, the
      “Loan”).

            


    

    


    Dear
Sirs:

    


    Each of
the undersigned hereby reaffirms and ratifies all the terms, conditions,
representations, and covenants contained in the Security Agreement and certifies
that there are no defenses, offsets, or counterclaims thereto as of the date
hereof.

    


    Each of
the undersigned further covenants and agrees (i) that the security interests
granted to Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company by the Security Agreement and
perfected by subsequent UCC-1 filings, remain in full force and effect as set
forth therein and that same continue to constitute a binding first security
interest in the stated assets of each of the undersigned securing the Borrower’s
and each of the undersigned’s debt to Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company
and that they are unaffected by the execution of that certain ALLONGE TO NOTE
and that certain LIMITED WAIVER AND AMENDMENT AGREEMENT evidencing, among other
things, (i) the reduction of the Principal amount of the Loan as set forth
therein and (ii) the waiver of certain financial covenants for fiscal period
ended 9/30/09, and any related documents, dated of even date herewith, copies of
which each of the undersigned acknowledges having received and reviewed and (ii)
that the Security Agreement is in full force and effect.

    


    Very
truly yours,

    


    EMERGING
VISION, INC.

    


    By:           /s/ Christopher G.
Payan

    Christopher G. Payan, CEO

    


    


    OG
ACQUISITION, INC.

    


    By:           /s/ Brian P.
Alessi

    Name: Brian P. Alessi

    Title: Chief Financial
Officer

     

    


    COMBINE
BUYING GROUP, INC.

    


    By:           /s/ Brian P.
Alessi

    Name: Brian P. Alessi

    Title: Chief Financial
Officer

     

    


    1725758
ONTARIO INC. D/B/A THE OPTICAL GROUP

    


    By:           /s/ Brian P.
Alessi

    Name: Brian P. Alessi

    Title: Chief Financial
Officer
#### ROYAL INDEMNITY CO v BOYD

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 9312.

Decided October 29, 1928

Messrs. Baker, Hostetler & Sidlo, Cleveland, for Indem Co.

Messrs. Day & Day, Cleveland, for Boyd.

EPITOMIZED OPINION

In a case wherein a person attempted to board a street car, and as he placed his foot in the doorway, the door was closed upon it, throwing him to the ground, and when the car started he w,as dragged upwards of ten feet, the injury sustained was not one calling for double indemnity within the terms of an accident insurance policy providing for “double indemnity” if the injury was sustained by the insured “while riding as a passenger in or upon a public conveyance (including the platform, steps or running board thereof,” as the injury occurred while attempting to become a passenger and not after becoming a passenger.

Opinion by

SULLIVAN, PJ.

VICKERY & LEVINE, JJ, concur.
#### § 375.26 Waiver of sovereign immunity.

Owners and operators of aircraft operated under this part that are engaged in proprietary of commercial activities waive any defense of sovereign immunity from suit in any action or proceeding instituted against any of them in any court or other tribunal in the United States for any claim relating to that operation.
§ 91.159 VFR cruising altitude or flight level. Except while holding in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less, or while turning, each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain the appropriate altitude or flight level prescribed below, unless otherwise authorized by ATC: ( a ) When operating below 18,000 feet MSL and— ( 1 ) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd thousand foot MSL altitude + 500 feet (such as 3,500, 5,500, or 7,500); or
( 2 ) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even thousand foot MSL altitude + 500 feet (such as 4,500, 6,500, or 8,500).
( b ) When operating above 18,000 feet MSL, maintain the altitude or flight level assigned by ATC.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-276, 68 FR 61321, Oct. 27, 2003; 68 FR 70133, Dec. 17, 2003]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7539

W. A. MACGUIRE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DENNIS BAUGH, Probation and Parole Officer;

ROBIN HARPER, Probation Officer; ALAN

RASMUSSEN, Probation and Parole Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CA-95-776-R)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 25, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

W. A. MacGuire, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

William A. MacGuire appeals the district court's order denying

his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of the court's

dismissal of his complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d) (1988). The notice of appeal brings up for review

MacGuire's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint as well as the motion

for reconsideration. See Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th

Cir. 1978). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. MacGuire v. Baugh, No. CA-95-

776-R (E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 1995; Sept. 5, 1995). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# SUMMARY:

                        In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which provides opportunity for public comment on new or revised data                         Start Printed Page 2998                        collections, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) will publish periodic summaries of proposed data collections.                    

## Comments Are Invited On

(a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information  has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the RRB's estimate of the burden of the collection of the information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden related to the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

## Title and Purpose of Information Collection

#### Nonresident Questionnaire; OMB 3220-0145

Under Public Laws 98-21 and 98-76, benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act payable to annuitants living outside the United States may be subject to taxation under United States income tax laws.

Whether the social security equivalent and non-social security equivalent portions of Tier I, Tier II, vested dual benefit, or supplemental annuity payments are subject to tax withholding, and whether the same or different rates are applied to each payment, depends on a beneficiary's citizenship and legal residence status, and whether exemption under a tax treaty between the United States and the country in which the beneficiary is a legal resident has been claimed. To effect the required tax withholding, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) needs to know a nonresidents citizenship and legal residence status.

To secure the required information, the RRB-1001, Nonresident Questionnaire, as a supplement to an application as part of the initial application process, and as an independent vehicle for obtaining the needed information when an annuitant's residence or tax treaty status changes. Completion is voluntary. One response is requested of each respondent.

The RRB estimates that 1,500 Form RRB-1001's are completed annually. The completion time for Form RRB-1001 is estimated at 30 minutes. No change are proposed to Form RRB-1001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

To request more information or to obtain a copy of the information collection justification, forms, and/or supporting material, please call the RRB Clearance Officer at (312) 751-3363. Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 N. Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.

Chuck Mierzwa,

Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 00-1204 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
### Proposed Petroleum Refineries Sector Risk 

### & Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards 

### Public Hearing Speaker List August 5, 2014- Galena Park, Texas



### Time Name 

### Affiliation 9:00-9:15 INTRODUCTIONS OF EPA HEARING PANEL & OPENING STATEMENT



### 9 : 15 Gene Green Congressman 

### 9:20 David Friedman AFPM 

### 9 :25 Matthew Todd AP I 

### 9:30 Alex Cuclis Houston Advance Research Center 

### 9 :35 Dr

. Beverly Wright Dillard University Deep South Center for Environmental Justice 

### 9 :40 Luke Metzger Environment Texas 

### 9 :45 John Sullivan Sealy Center Environmental Health 

### & Medicine 

### 9:50 Adrian Shelley Air Alliance Houston 

### 9:55 Theresa Landrum Sierra Club- Detroit 

### 10:00 Juan Parras TX Environmental Justice Advocacy Svcs 

### 10:05 Lena Moffitt Sierra Club- DC 

### 10:10 Kelly Haragan Environmental Integrity Project 

### 10:15 llan Levin Environmental Integrity Project 

### 10:20 Monique Harden Advocates for Environmental Human Rights 

### 10:25 Velma White Residents for Air Neutralization, 

### 10:30 Tyrone Edwards Zion Travelers Cooperative Center 

### 10 :35 Dorothy Felex Mossville Environmental Action Now 

### 10:40 Margie Richard Truth Community Outreach 

### 10 :45 Stephanie Anthony Louisiana Democracy Project 

### 10:50 WillieMae Williams Louisiana Environmental Justice Community Organizaiton Coalition 

### 10 :55 Sharon Gauthe Bayou Interfaith Community Organizaing 

### 11:00 Darrell Malek-Wiley Sierra Club 

### 11:05 Mary Williams Deep South Center for Environmental Justice 

### 11:10 Robert Bullard Texas Southern University 

### 11:15 Ericua Thomas LA Democracy Project 

### 11:20 Willie Fontenot Sierra Club Delta Chapter 

### 11:25 Leslie Fields Sierra Club 

### 11:30 Ryan Knapick Clean Air Council 

### 11 :35 Stephen Pavel Full Spectrum Consulting 

### 11:40 Pete Olson Congressman 

### 11:45 Saleem Chapman Clean Air Council 

### 11:50 Arturo Blanco National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) 

### 11:55 AVAILABLE 

### 12:00-1:00 LUNCH BREAK 

### 1 :05 SUMMARY OF OPENING STATEMENT & HEARING PANEL INTRODUCTIONS 

### 1:10 Rebecca Bruhl Baylor College of Medicine 

### 1 : 15 Andy Zeilinger Louisana Bucket Brigade 

### 1:20 Katie Moore Louisana Bucket Brigade 

### 1 :25 Craig Beskid East Harris County Mfg Assoc EHCMA 

### 1 :30 Marcelo Norsworthy Environmental Defense Fund 

### 1 :35-1 :55 AVAILABLE



### 1:55 Donald Richner Houston Health 

### & Human Svs 

### 2:00 Hillary Corgey Public Citizen 

### 2:05 Neil Carman Sierra Club

- Lone Star 

### 2: 10 YingTGao CAMSCO 

### 2: 15-2:30 AVAILABLE 

### 2:30-3:00 AVAILABLE 

### 3:00-3:30 AVAILABLE 

### 3 :30-4:00 AVAILABLE 

### 4:00-4:30 AVAILABLE 

### 4 :30

-5:00 AVAILABLE 

### 5 :00

-6:00 DINNER 

### 6:00-6 :30 AVAILABLE 

### 6:30-7:00 AVAILABLE 

### 7 :00-7:30 AVAILABLE 

### 7:30-8:00 AVAILABLE
#### STORM & SONS v BLANCHETT

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21329.

Decided Feb. 20, 1929

Syllabus by

MATTHIAS, J

GUARANTY

(280 C2) The clear and unambiguous terms of an instrument of guaranty will not be extended by construction or implication to cover a period of time not embraced within those terms.

Where a guarantor in writing assured the payment of invoices for services rendered “until such time as the corporation of the Union Body Company, Inc., has been made effective,” a subsequent statement in the instrument, that “when the corporation is completed we will furnish your company a financial statement such as will make it possible for you to extend our company your usual terms of credit,” does not serve to extend the period of liability of the guarantor beyond the time when the incorporation of said company became effective.

In an action predicated upon such instrument to recover for services rendered such company in April, 1925, it being conceded, that the incorporation was completed and effective December 29, 1924, the defendant was entitled to a directed verdict in his favor.

Marshall, CJ, Robinson, Day and Allen, JJ, concur. Kinkade, J, not participating.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7712
JAMES LARRY OWENS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.

No. 98-7791
JAMES LARRY OWENS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-98- 2504-L)2 Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 21, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.James Larry Owens, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s judgment or order is marked as “filed” on November 18, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on November 19, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the judgment or order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 3 PER CURIAM: James Larry Owens seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Owens’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Owens v. Corcoran , No. CA-98-2504-L (D. Md. Sept. 25 & Nov. 19, 1998). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      269334
<SECURITIES>                                 25000
<RECEIVABLES>                                94441
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            409507
<PP&E>                                       29045
<DEPRECIATION>                               25228
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              512074
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         4954
<BONDS>                                     305474
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     68538
<OTHER-SE>                                  133108
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                512074
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            166158
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               408689
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             18270
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          131698
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (392499)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (392499)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (392499)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.01)


</TABLE>
#### The State *v.*Chancey.

Bail.

(Decided June 1, 1916.

72 South. 213.)

1. Habeas Corpus; Appeal; State. — The state has a right to appeal without giving security for costs from an order on habeas corpus allowing bail.

2. Bail; Review; Scope. — The appellate courts will not reverse an order admitting to bail where the evidence is conflicting and one phase of the evidence supports the order.

Appeal from Geneva Chancery Court.

Heard before Hon. Oscar S. Lewis.

Ike D. Chancey was charged with murder and was admitted to bail on an application for habeas corpus, and the State of Alabama appeals.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, and H. G. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for the State. Lee & Tompkins, and Farmer & Farmer, for appellee.

PELHAM, P. *J.*

This appeal is from an order of the chancellor of the Southeastern chancery division admitting the petitioner (appellee) to bail to answer a charge of murder in the first degree, preferred through the office of an indictment regularly presented by a grand jury of the circuit court of Geneva county.

(1, 2) That the state has a right to appeal from an order on habeas corpus without giving security for costs is settled.— *State v. Davis,*156 Ala. 181, 47 South. 182; *State v. Towery, et al.,*143 Ala. 48, 39 South. 309. It has also been repeatedly held that in reviewing the finding of the primary tribunal the conclusion of the judge below on the facts, who sees and hears the witnesses, will not be disturbed, unless his finding is contrary to the great weight or preponderance of the *evidence.*—State *v. Lacey,*158 Ala. 16, 48 South. 343; *Butler, et al. v. State,*1 Ala. App. 265, 56 South. 20. An examination of the evidence shows a conflict, one phase of which well supports the order of the chancellor admitting the petitioner to bail; and, having due regard to the weight which should'in such a case be accorded to *120the judgment and finding on the facts of the primary tribunal by the reviewing court on appeal, we cannot say that the evidence presented by the record in this case makes it clear that the chancellor was in error in granting bail. For obvious reasons we refrain from a discussion of the diverging tendencies of the conflicting evidence, and express no opinion as to any part of "the evidence that might affect the trial to be had on the merits, further than to state our conclusion as above from the entire record on the' question presented on this appeal.

It follows that the order of the chancellor must be affirmed.

Affirmed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-1721

[January 11, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Jeffrey Levenson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 12-11800CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. 

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.