alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Barlow *et al. v.*The Planters’ Bank.

When a note falls due on Sunday, payment should be demanded on the Saturday; and it will be in season to give notice to the indorsers, on the following Monday.

Where an instruction is improperly refused when asked by one party, but the law correctly stated at the instance of the other, it will not be error.

IN ERROR from the circuit court of. the county of Adams.

This action was founded on a note for seven hundred and fifty dollars, made by A. Brown, and indorsed by N. Barlow and R. Stuart.

Declaration in common form, general issue and judgment for plaintiff. The bill of exceptions stated, the court was requested to charge “ that the first day of February, 1837, is not to be included in the computation of the time the bill had to run,’? which was refused. The plaintiff asked the court to charge that “ the note sued on, being payable thirteen months after the first day of February 1837, was due and payable on the first and fourth of March 1838, and if payment was demanded on the third day of March, and the fourth was Sunday, and notice was given on the fifth, such demand of payment and notice of protest for non-payment was regular, and sufficient to charge the indorsers,” which instruction was given.

Vannerson for plaintiff in error.

Montgomery *contra.*

Although the first instruction asked by defendants was law, and should have been given, yet as the instruction if given, and all the weight attached to it which the jury would have been warranted *130in, it would not have entitled the defendants to a verdict. The only question was, when was said note due and payable, and the instruction moved for by the plaintiffs below, defined the rule correctly and fully. It could not be of any importance to charge the jury to omit the first day of February 1837, except for the purpose of ascertaining the day on which the note matured, which question was correctly settled by the charge given. Bayley on Bills, 238-236, note; Espinasse, 261.

*Per Curiam.*

The only question in this case is, whether a note payable thirteen months after the first day of April 1837, was due and payable on the first and fourth of March *18381*And we were of opinion that it was; and that if payment was demanded on the third day of March, the fourth being Sunday, and notice of non-payment was given on the fifth, it was sufficient to charge the" indorsers. See Chitty on Bills, 406; 3 Brod. & Bing. 187; 7 Eng. Com. Law Rep. 403; Bayley on Bills, 236-238, note.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000055387
<NAME> KENTUCKY UTILITIES COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,562,247
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     14,349
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         155,523
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        52,971
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,785,090
<COMMON>                                       307,545<F1>
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            329,470
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 637,015
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     40,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           484,830
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   61,500
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 561,745
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,785,090
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      937,310
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            60,380
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     740,914
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     801,294
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        136,016
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               9,437
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 145,453
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        38,895
<NET-INCOME>                                   106,558
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      2,256
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  104,302
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        73,999
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       35,362
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         204,176
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes common stock expense of $595.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of  Elgrande International, Inc.(the "Company") On  Form  10-QSB  for  the period  ended  February 28, 2007 as  filed  with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on  the  date  hereof  (the "Report"),  I, Michael F. Holloran, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of  2002,  that  to the  best  of my knowledge: (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 result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Michael F. Holloran Michael F. Holloran Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer  May 15, 2007
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
Pursuant to


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


as
added by


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of  Pulaski Financial Corp. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Pulaski
      Financial as of and for the period covered by the
  Report.





Date:
      December 17, 2010
                /s/ Gary W. DouglassName:
                Gary
      W. DouglassTitle:
                President
      and Chief Executive
Officer
# EUR-Lex - 31999D0716 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999D0716

**1999/716/EC: Commission Decision of 19 October 1999 amending Decision 92/486/EEC on the form of collaboration between the Animo host centre and the Member States (notified under number C(1999) 3358) (Text with EEA relevance.) **

*
Official Journal L 289 , 11/11/1999 P. 0001 - 0001 *

COMMISSION DECISION

of 19 October 1999

amending Decision 92/486/EEC on the form of collaboration between the Animo host centre and the Member States

(notified under number C(1999) 3358)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(1999/716/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning the veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market(1), as last amended by Directive 92/118/EEC(2), and in particular Article 20(3) thereof,

(1) Whereas the various works carried out at Community level during studies and seminars in particular require the systems architecture of the Animo network to be revised so that a veterinary system integrating the various computer applications can be introduced;

(2) Whereas Decision 92/486/EEC of 25 September 1992 establishing the form of collaboration between the Animo host centre and the Member States(3), as last amended by Decision 98/222/EC(4), should be amended to ensure the continuity of the Animo network;

(3) Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee;

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Decision 92/486/EEC is amended as follows:

The following paragraph 4 is added to Article 2a:

"4. For the period from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000, the coordination authorities provided for in Article 1 shall ensure that the contracts referred to in that Article are extended for one year.

The following charge shall apply in respect of this paragraph:

EUR 386 per unit (central unit, local unit, border inspection post) for all the Animo units listed in Decision 96/295/EC, as last amended by Decision 98/167/EC(5)."

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on 1 April 1999.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 October 1999.

For the Commission

David BYRNE

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29.

(2) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, p. 49.

(3) OJ L 291, 7.10.1992, p. 20.

(4) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998, p. 50.

(5) OJ L 62, 3.3.1998, p. 33.
October 20 , 2020

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

C.A. No. 19

- 3239

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

FRANCISCO NICHOLAS BRITO

, a/k/a “Nicholas Brito,” a/k/a “Jose,” Appellant

( D.N.J No. 2:18

- cr

- 00557

- 001 )

Present: McKEE, BIBAS, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges

Submitted are

(1) Appellant ’s motion to publish the opinion [Dkt. No. 55 ]; and

(2) Appellee ’s response to Appellant ’s motion to publish the opinion

[Dkt. No. 56 ]

in the above

- captioned case.

Respectfully,

Clerk

________________________________ORDER_________________________________

The foregoing motion is granted.

By the Court,

s / Stephanos Bibas

Circuit Judge

Dated: October 29, 2020

T mm/ cc : Alison Brill, Esq.

Lisa M. Mack, Esq.

John F. Romano, Esq.

Mark E. Coyne, Esq.
#### Kevin Jones, Plaintiff, v North Babylon Associates, Respondent, and John Savakkis, et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[697 NYS2d 686]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants John Savakkis and SEM Doughnut, Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated May 6, 1998, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant North Babylon Associates which was for summary judgment dismissing all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

An out-of-possession landlord who relinquishes control of the premises is not liable for injuries that occur on the premises except under certain well-defined situations *(see, Caffiero v Shore,*216 AD2d 265; *Lafleur v Power Test Realty Co. Ltd. Partnership,*159 AD2d 691; *Silver v Brodsky,*112 AD2d 213). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant North Babylon Associates established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and that no evidence was submitted establishing the existence of a question of fact.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.
§ 1917.73 Terminal facilities handling menhaden and similar species of fish (see also § 1917.2, definition of hazardous cargo, material, substance or atmosphere). ( a ) ( 1 ) Tanks in terminal areas used for receiving or storing bailwater for recirculating into vessel holds in discharging operations shall be opened or ventilated to minimize contamination of water circulated to the vessel. Bailwater tanks shall be thoroughly drained upon completion of each day's operations and shall be left open to the air. Drainage is unnecessary when bailwater has been treated to remove hydrogen sulfide-producing contaminants and the efficiency of such treatment has been established by the employer.
( 2 ) Before employees enter a dock tank, it shall first be drained, rinsed and tested for hydrogen sulfide and oxygen deficiency. Employees shall not enter the tank when the hydrogen sulfide level exceeds 20 ppm or oxygen content is less than 19.5 percent, except in emergencies.
( 3 ) Tests shall be conducted by designated personnel with suitable test equipment and respiratory protective equipment complying with the provisions of § 1910.134 of this chapter.
( b ) Pipelines and hoses on the dock or terminal used for receiving and circulating used bailwater shall be completely drained upon completion of each day's operation and left open to the air.
( c ) At least four units of respiratory protective equipment consisting of supplied-air respirators or self-contained breathing apparatus complying with the requirements of § 1910.134 of this chapter shall be available in a suitably labeled cabinet for immediate use in case of emergency caused by oxygen deficiency or hydrogen sulfide. Any employee entering a tank in an emergency shall, in addition to respiratory protective equipment, wear a lifeline and safety harness to facilitate rescue. At least two other employees, similarly equipped, shall be continuously stationed outside the tank to observe and to provide rescue services.
( d ) The plant superintendent and foremen shall be trained and knowledgeable about the hazards of hydrogen sulfide and oxygen deficiency. They shall be trained in the use of appropriate respiratory and other protective equipment, and in rescue procedures. Other supervisory plant personnel shall be informed of these hazards and instructed in the necessary safety measures, including use of respiratory and rescue equipment.
( e ) Supervisory personnel shall be on hand at dockside to supervise discharging of bailwater from vessels.
[48 FR 30909, July 5, 1983, as amended at 65 FR 40940, June 30, 2000]
August 31, 2015

Dear Mr. Newton:

This letter is to inform y ou that the following informati on is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

− 2015

− 1645). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture a nd Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove clos ed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information desc ribed above by 9/14/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the doc ket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712.

Sincerely,
/s/
Brenda Robeson Program Analyst
Promissory Note



 Exhibit 10.2 
 Promissory Note 
 On this date of July 21, 2009, in return for valuable consideration received, the
undersigned borrower promises to pay to Seatac Digital Resources, Inc., the “Lender”, the sum of One-Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), together with interest thereon at the rate of five percent (5%) percent per annum.

 Payable On Demand: The entire unpaid principal and accrued interest thereon, if any, shall become immediately due and payable on demand by the
holder of this Note. 
 Default - In the event of default, the borrower agrees to pay all costs and expenses incurred by the Lender, including all
reasonable attorney fees (including both hourly and contingent attorney fees as permitted by law) for the collection of this Note upon default, and including reasonable collection charges (including, where consistent with industry practices, a
collection charge set as a percentage of the outstanding balance of this Note) should collection be referred to a collection agency. 
 Acceleration of
Debt - In the event that the borrower fails to make any payment due under the terms of this Note, or breach any condition relating to any security, security agreement, note, mortgage or lien granted as collateral security for this Note, seeks
relief under the Bankruptcy Code, or suffers an involuntary petition in bankruptcy or receivership not vacated within thirty (30) days, the entire balance of this Note and any interest accrued thereon shall be immediately due and payable to the
holder of this Note. 
 Modification - No modification or waiver of any of the terms of this Agreement shall be allowed unless by written agreement
signed by both parties. No waiver of any breach or default hereunder shall be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach or default of the same or similar nature. 
 Transfer of the Note - The borrowers hereby waive any notice of the transfer of this Note by the Lender or by any subsequent holder of this Note, agree to remain bound by the terms of this Note subsequent to any transfer, and agree
that the terms of this Note may be fully enforced by any subsequent holder of this Note. 
 Severability of Provisions - In the event that any
portion of this Note is deemed unenforceable, all other provisions of this Note shall remain in full force and effect. 
 Choice of Law - All terms
and conditions of this Note shall be interpreted under the laws of The State of California. 
 Dated: July 21, 2009 
  

	
	 /s/ Donald R. Mastropietro

	 America’s Minority Health Network, Inc.
 Borrower
13234

#### PROSSER v. AVERY LUMBER COMPANY

(160 S. E., 431)

*Mr. Rayrnon Schwarts,*for appellant,

*Messrs. Bpps & Levy,*for respondent,

August 31, 1931.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Stabler.

*161This is an action for damages for personal injuries which plaintiff claims he received while in the employ of the defendant. He alleges that on June 18, 1928, while attending to his duties as such employee, he'was painfully injured by being struck in the groin by a board thrown with force and violence from defendant’s planing machine; that his injuries were due to the negligent and reckless acts of the defendant in allowing the roller and profile of the planer to be out of adjustment, thus permitting the machine to throw the board against him; and in failing to notify or warn him of the defect in the planer and the danger created thereby. The defenses were a general denial, contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and accident.

At the close of plaintiff’s case, the defendant moved for a nonsuit, as to both actual and punitive damages. The Court, in passing upon the matter, announced that he would submit the case to the jury as to actual damages only. When all the evidence was in, the defendant made a motion, on the same grounds as those stated in his motion for a nonsuit, for a directed verdict, which was refused. The jury found for the plaintiff $181.00, and from judgment entered on the verdict, this appeal is taken.

There are three exceptions. The first assigns error to the trial Judge in failing'to grant a nonsuit or to direct a verdict on eight several grounds therein set out.

Respondent makes the point that this exception, under the rule of Court, cannot be considered, for the reason that the defendant made no motion for a non-suit or for a directed verdict on the ground that there was no evidence showing actionable negligence on its part. This contention must be sustained. The grounds stated in the exception were not embodied in the motion for a nonsuit or for a directed verdict, and were not considered or passed upon by the Court below. The question raised by this exception, therefore, is not properly before this Court.

Appellant complains by Exception 2 that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the law and the evidence, and sets *162out as his reasons therefor the same grounds stated in the first exception. As we have already pointed out, these objections should have been first passed upon by the trial Court on a motion for a nonsuit or for a directed verdict, which was not done. Exception 3 is subject to the same objection.

There being nothing before us for consideration, the appeal is dismissed.

Mr. Chiee Justicb-Brease and Messrs. Justices Cothran, Carter and Bonham concur.
#### § 1641.1 Purpose and application.

The purpose of this part is to implement procedures for processing and resolving complaints/charges of employment discrimination filed against employers holding government contracts or subcontracts, where the complaints/charges fall within the jurisdiction of both section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (hereinafter “Section 503”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (hereinafter “ADA”). The promulgation of this part is required pursuant to section 107(b) of the ADA. Nothing in this part should be deemed to affect the Department of Labor's (hereinafter “DOL”) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs' (hereinafter “OFCCP”) conduct of compliance reviews of government contractors and subcontractors under section 503. Nothing in this part is intended to create rights in any person.
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - 40 CFR Part 52 
          - [PA 112-4084; FRL-6702-7] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

# ACTION:

Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking. 

# SUMMARY:

                        On February 2, 1999 (64 FR 5015), EPA proposed to approve the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's regulations for Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Allowance Requirements (commonly referred to as the NOX                         Budget Rule) as a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Prior to our taking any final rulemaking, the Commonwealth informed us that it was revising the rule. On December 27, 1999, the Commonwealth submitted a new SIP revision request to EPA which consists of the revised version of its NOX                         Budget Rule. Because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has now submitted the revised version of its NOX                         Budget Rule as a SIP revision, we are withdrawing our February 2, 1999 proposed rule on the old version. EPA will initiate a new and separate rulemaking on the Commonwealth's December 27, 1999 SIP revision submittal.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cristina Fernandez, (215) 814-2178, or by e-mail at fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

Dated: March 19, 2000. 

Bradley M. Campbell, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 00-12519 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U