alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JONES v CHICHESTER

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Athens Co

Decided Feb 21, 1929

Woolley & Rowland, Athens, for Jones.

Charles D. Fogle and Emmitt Keenan, Athens, for Chichester.

*196MAUCK, J.

The only assignment of ei;ror worth consideration is that the first cause of action, upon which the verdict was rendered, is not sufficient to support a judgment inasmuch as it is claimed that that attempted cause of action does not in fact state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The mistake on the part of the plaintiff was to attempt to make two causes of action out of the pleaded facts. There was but one contract. The real claim of the plaintiff was that the defendant breached this' contract in not allowing, him to fully perform so that the plaintiff might realize the fifteen hundred dollars in personal property to which under the contract he would have been entitled. This he ought to have pleaded in one cause of action. The defendant was, however, fully acquainted with the terms of the contract which he had signed and he did not assail the petition either by motion or by demurrer. If we treat the petition as a whole it was not demurrable, for as a whole it stated one cause of action. When, therefore, the defendant raised the question of the sufficiency of the petition for the first time on page four by objecting to the introduction of further testimony the court properly overruled the objection.

The verdict shows that the jury allowed the plaintiff nothing in the way of damages for that part of the contract that was not performed by the plaintiff. The verdict further discloses that the jury found that the plaintiff did not breach the contract but performed so far as he was permitted to perform. It fixed the recovery of the plaintiff for work admittedlv done at the rate that the parties had agreed should be the measure of the value of the plaintiff’s services in drilling the first well. The unfortunate way in which the case was presented by the petition made a difficult case for the trial court to submit to the jury," but this difficulty was invited by defendant’s acquiescence in that form of pleading, by his failure to attack the petition. Upon the record as a whole it appears that the jury arrived at the right result. It being undisputed that plaintiff drilled the first well and that the parties had agreed that $1.25 per foot was to be the basis upon which his compensation was to be reckoned, when the jury found that the contract' had been breached by the defendant and not by the plaintiff the verdict herein was the irreducible minimum of the-plaintiff’s right of recovery.

Substantial justice has been done and under Section 11,634 G. C. the irregularities of the procedure can not defeat an affirmance.

Middleton, PJ, and Blosser, J, concur.
§ 171.267 Glide path automatic monitor system. ( a ) The ISMLS glide path equipment must provide an automatic monitor system that transmits a warning to designated local and remote control points when any of the following occurs: ( 1 ) A shift of the mean ISMLS glide path angle equivalent to more than 0.075θ.
( 2 ) For glide paths in which the basic functions are provided by the use of a single frequency system, a reduction of power output to less than 50 percent.
( 3 ) A change of the angle between the glide path and the line below the glide path (150 Hz predominating), at which a DDM of 0.0875 is realized by more than ±0.0375θ.
( 4 ) Lowering of the line beneath the ISMLS glide path at which a DDM of 0.0875 is realized to less than 0.75θ from the horizontal.
( 5 ) Failure of any part of the monitor itself. Such failure must automatically produce the same results as the malfunctioning of the element being monitored.
( b ) At glide path facilities where the selected nominal angular displacement sensitivity corresponds to an angle below the ISMLS glide path, which is close to or at the maximum limits specified, an adjustment to the monitor operating limits may be made to protect against sector deviations below 0.75θ from the horizontal.
( c ) Within 10 seconds of the occurrence of any of the conditions prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section, including periods of zero radiation, glide path signal radiation must cease.
----

| 1) | Allied Fine Development      Limited, a company set up and validly constituted under the laws of      Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, with registered office Room 1508-1509 Peninsula      Square, 18 Sung On Street, HungHom, Kowloon (hereinafter referred      to as “Company A”); and |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2) | Best Paramount Industrial      Limited, a company set up and validly constituted under the laws of      Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, with registered office 2/F, Emax, Hong Kong      International Trade and Exhibition Centre, No. 1 Trademart Drive, Kowloon      Bay, Kowloon (hereinafter referred to as “Company    B”). |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

| SIGNED      by                                              | )                         |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|
| for      and on behalf of Allied Fine Development Limited   | )                         |
|                                                        | in      the presence of:- | ) |
|                                                        |                      |   |
|                                                        |                      |   |
|                                                        |                      |   |
|                                                        |                      |   |
| SIGNED      by                                              | )                         |
| for      and on behalf of Best Paramount Industrial Limited | )                         |
|                                                        | in      the presence of:- | ) |

----
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****From war to deterrence? :Israel-Hezbollah conflict since 2006**
 
PDF | Mobi | ePub
 
SuDoc Number:D 101.146:W 19/4
Item Number:0307-A-31 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000930357
 
January 12, 2018
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1618

SAMUEL L. SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, a New York Corporation; THE SPARTANBURG HERALD-JOURNAL, a South

Carolina Corporation,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

MIKE TOWERY; EARL BARBER,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-94-2300-7-20AK)

Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Samuel L. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Bernard Lindemann, JACKSON, LEWIS, SCHNITZLER & KRUPMAN, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Appellees summary judgment in this employment discrimination action. We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Smith v. New York Times Co., No. CA-94-2300-7-20AK (D.S.C.

Mar. 22, 1996). 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
#### CARRUTHERS et v KENNEDY et

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21576.

Decided May 29, 1929

Syllabus by

MARSHALL, CJ.

DEBTOR & CREDITOR

(210 Be) A conveyance by an insolvent debtor in contemplation of insolvency, made with a design to prefer the purchaser to the exclusion in whole or in part of other creditors, the purchaser not knowing of such insolvency or of the design to prefer but believing the vendor to be solvent, is valid.

A conveyance by an insolvent debtor in contemplation of insolvency, made with intent to hinder, delay and defraud creditors, the purchaser not knowing of such insolvency or of such fraudulent intent, is valid.

That part of 11105 GC, which provides that the provisions of 11104 GC shall not apply unless the person or persons to whom a sale, conveyance, transfer, mortgage or assignment is made knows of such fraudulent intent on the part of the debtor or debtors, has application to a design to prefer one creditor to the exclusion in whole or in part of other creditors, and likewise has application to a conveyance made with intent to hinder, delay and defraud creditors.

Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Day, JJ,' concur.
1 

### Hall-Jordan, Luke

From: **Hall-Jordan, Luke** Sent: **Friday, October 02, 2015 4:55 PM** To: **Donaldson, David; Jones, Danielle** Cc: **Arling, Jeremy** Subject: **RE: EO 12866/13563 Interagency Review: EPA's Protec tion of Stratospheric Ozone:**  **Update to the Refrigerant Management Requirements U nder Section 608 of the Clean**  **Air Act (RIN 2060-AS51)** Attachments: **EO 12866_13563 EPA Refrigerants NPRM_10.2.2015_EPA. docx; EO12866_CAA Part 82F**  **2060-AS51 NPRM FRN_20151002.docx**

Hi Danielle,

As promised, here is EPA’s response to the comments you provided us with on Monday as well as a revise d preamble and regulatory text. Please let us know if you have additional questions or concerns.

Have a great weekend!

Best, Luke

Luke Hall-Jordan Stratospheric Protection Division, U.S. EPA 202-343-9591 (desk) 202-230-7589 (mobile)

From: Donaldson, David Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 5:42 PM To: Jones, Danielle Cc: Arling, Jeremy; Hall-Jordan, Luke Subject: RE: EO 12866/13563 Interagency Review: EPA's Prote ction of Stratospheric Ozone: Update to the Refrige rant Management Requirements Under Section 608 of the Cl ean Air Act (RIN 2060-AS51)

Thank you Danielle,

I confirm receipt and we plan to get back to you as soon as possible.

David Donaldson 202-343-9086

From: Jones, Danielle [ mailto:Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov ] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 4:26 PM To: Donaldson, David Cc: Arling, Jeremy; Hall-Jordan, Luke Subject: EO 12866/13563 Interagency Review: EPA's Protectio n of Stratospheric Ozone: Update to the Refrigerant Management Requirements Under Section 608 of the Cl ean Air Act (RIN 2060-AS51)

David,2 Attached are the interagency reviewer’s comments. P lease let me know if you have any questions.

Best, Danielle

Danielle Y. Jones Policy Analyst Office of Management and Budget Phone: (202) 395-1741 | djones@omb.eop.gov
EXHIBIT  32.2  --  CERTIFICATION  OF  CHIEF  FINANCIAL  OFFICER OF FIRST CAPITAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL,  INC.,  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND  SECTION  1350  OF  18  U.S.C.  63.
---------------------------------------


I,  Alex Genin, the Chief Financial Officer of First Capital International, Inc.
hereby  certify that First Capital International, Inc.'s periodic report on Form
10QSB  and  the  financial  statements contained therein fully complies with the
requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15  U.S.C.  78m or 78o(d) and that information contained in the periodic report
on  Form 10QSB and the financial statements contained therein fairly represents,
in  all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations
of  First  Capital  International,  Inc

Date:  November 14, 2003              /s/ Alex Genin
                                      Chief Executive Officer of
                                      First Capital International, Inc.


<PAGE>
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse, May 16, 2000, 1 p.m. to May 17, 2000, 11:30 a.m., Neuroscience Center, National Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 25, 2000, Volume 65 FR 24493.                

The agenda of the meeting has been changed. On May 16, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., the meeting will be closed to the public, and on May 17, from 9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., the meeting will be open to the public. The meeting is partially closed to the public.

Dated: May 4, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-11757  Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4685 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4685

To prohibit assistance to foreign governments that violate human rights 
                   with respect to religious freedom.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 2020

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit assistance to foreign governments that violate human rights 
                   with respect to religious freedom.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. IDENTIFICATION OF COUNTRIES WITH LAWS IMPOSING SEVERE 
              CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR APOSTASY, BLASPHEMY, OR 
              INTERFAITH.

    Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the President shall submit a report to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the 
House of Representatives that lists each foreign government that the 
President determines, based on credible information, imposes a death 
sentence or life imprisonment on the basis of--
            (1) anti-apostasy laws that explicitly prohibit 
        disaffiliation from a particular religion;
            (2) anti-blasphemy laws; or
            (3) laws prohibiting marriage between individuals of 
        different religious faiths.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS THAT VIOLATE 
              HUMAN RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO RELIGION.

    The United States Government is prohibited from obligating or 
expending any Federal funds to provide assistance to the government of 
any country identified in the report submitted by the President 
pursuant to section 1.
                                 <all>
```
#### LAKEWOOD (City) v KRAMER

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10147.

Decided October 28, 1929

Mr. R. G. Curren, Esq., Cleveland, for City.

Messrs. Mooney, Hahn, Loeser & Keough, Cleveland, for Kramer.

*697VICKERY. PJ.

' We have examined this record, heard the arguments of counsel and do not see how under the evidence in this case Kramer could be convicted of putting in 'this plumbing even if it was in violation of the law. Apparently he had nothing to do with it. He did not get the permit nor did he install the plumbing. There was a general contractor and there were different trade contractors. I believe Kramer did let the contracts to the various trades. In any event, the plumbing contractor had his contract, he got the.permit and he installed the plumbing and whether it was in violation of the building code in Lakewood, it is not very material in this case to determine, for it must be remembered that this is a criminal action and one man cannot be convicted for what another man does unless it is on the basis of a conspiracy. There is no such charge in the affidavit filed in this action.

We think the Common Pleas Court was right in reversing the Municipal Court and the judgment of the Common Pleas Court will be affirmed.

Sullivan, i and Levine, J, concur.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4837 

To repeal the Alien Enemies Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 21 (legislative day, OCTOBER 19), 2020 

Ms. HIRONO (for herself, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. MARKEY, and Mr. BOOKER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To repeal the Alien Enemies Act, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Neighbors Not En5 emies Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF ALIEN ENEMIES ACT. 

7 Sections 4067 through 4070 of the Revised Statutes 

8 of the United States (50 U.S.C. 21–24) are repealed. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT  32.2  --  CERTIFICATION  OF  CHIEF  FINANCIAL  OFFICER OF FIRST CAPITAL
INTERNATIONAL,  INC.,  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
AND  SECTION  1350  OF  18  U.S.C.  63.


I,  Alex Genin, the Chief Financial Officer of First Capital International, Inc.
hereby  certify that First Capital International, Inc.'s periodic report on Form
10QSB  and  the  financial  statements contained therein fully complies with the
requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15  U.S.C.  78m or 78o(d) and that information contained in the periodic report
on  Form 10QSB and the financial statements contained therein fairly represents,
in  all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations
of  First  Capital  International,  Inc.

Date:  August 16, 2004     /s/ Alex Genin
                           Acting Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
§ 91.706 Operations within airspace designed as Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Airspace. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry in airspace designated as Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) airspace unless: ( 1 ) The operator and the operator's aircraft comply with the requirements of appendix G of this part; and
( 2 ) The operator is authorized by the Administrator to conduct such operations.
( b ) The Administrator may authorize a deviation from the requirements of this section in accordance with Section 5 of appendix G to this part.
[Doc. No. 28870, 62 FR 17487, Apr. 9, 1997]
(LOGO)
KPMG
10 South Broadway Suite 900
St Louis, MO 63102-1761

Telephone 314 444 1400
Fax 314 444 1470

Independent Accountants' Report

The Board of Directors
Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.:

We have  examined  management's  assertion  about  Citicorp  Mortgage,  Inc. (an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup) and  subsidiaries'  (the Company)
compliance  with the  minimum  servicing  standards  set  forth in the  Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers  as of and  for  the  year  ended  December  31,  1998  included  in the
accompanying  management assertion.  Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with those minimum  servicing  standards.  Our  responsibility  is to
express an opinion on  management's  assertion  about the  Company'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 Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  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  Company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In  our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that  Citicorp  Mortgage,  Inc.  and
subsidiaries  complied in all material respects with the aforementioned  minimum
servicing  standards  as of and for the year ended  December  31, 1998 is fairly
stated, in all material respects.

KPMG LLP

March 2, 1999
§ 1471.825 What information must I provide to the debarring official if I contest a proposed debarment? ( a ) In addition to any information and argument in opposition, as a respondent your submission to the debarring official must identify— ( 1 ) Specific facts that contradict the statements contained in the Notice of Proposed Debarment. Include any information about any of the factors listed in § 1471.860. A general denial is insufficient to raise a genuine dispute over facts material to the debarment;
( 2 ) All existing, proposed, or prior exclusions under regulations implementing E.O. 12549 and all similar actions taken by Federal, State, or local agencies, including administrative agreements that affect only those agencies;
( 3 ) All criminal and civil proceedings not included in the Notice of Proposed Debarment that grew out of facts relevant to the cause(s) stated in the notice; and
( 4 ) All of your affiliates.
( b ) If you fail to disclose this information, or provide false information, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service may seek further criminal, civil or administrative action against you, as appropriate.