alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[L. A. No. 585.

Department Two.

December 28, 1899.]

#### P. O. CHILSTROM, Respondent, v. H. EPPINGER, Jr., and E. P. CHICK, Appellants.

Assignment—Judgment—Undertaking on Appeal — Eights of Assignee.—The assignment of a judgment only, without the assignment of the undertaking on appeal therefrom, does not pass to the assignee any right of action upon the undertaking on appeal, whether the assignment be made pending the appeal, or after the judgment has become a finality.

Id.—Distinct Contract of Sureties — Action by .Assignee of Judgment.—The contract of the sureties in undertaking on appeal and to stay proceedings is distinct from and independent of the judgment, and not a necessary incident to it, and an action thereupon by a mere assignee of the final judgment cannot he sustained.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San ' Luis Obispo County. E. P. Unangst, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

G. & A. Webster, and Louis Lamy, for Appellants.

S. M. Swinnerton, for Respondent.

HENSHAW, J.

The action is by the assignee of the judgment to recover on the undertakings given on appeal and given to stay proceedings. A judgment was rendered in the justice’s *327court in favor of Morgenson, plaintiff, against Grabow, defendant. An appeal was taken, and the undertakings here sued upon were given to support it. Before determination of the appeal Morgenson assigned his judgment to P. 0. Ohilstrom, plaintiff in this action. He made no assignment of Ms rights upon the undertaMngs. After the assignment of the judgment the appeal was dismissed, and Ohilstrom instituted this action in which he recovered judgment, from which defendants appeal.

In *Moses v.*Thorne, 6 Cal. 87, it was held that, in the absence of an assignment of the undertaking, the assignee of the judgment could not maintain an action against the sureties upon the appeal bond, the reasoning being that the contract of the sureties was entirely distinct from and independent of the judgment, was not a necessary incident to it, and the rights under it did not pass by assignment of the judgment. (See, also, *Dray v.*Mayer, 5 Or. 185.) The point is determinative of this appeal, for we can perceive no distinction between a case where the judgment has been assigned after it has become a finality, and the case at bar, where the judgment was assigned pending the determination of the appeal.

" The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.

McFarland, J., and Temple, J., concurred.
**Exhibit
      32.2**








**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 Tower Financial Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
      D. Cahill, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(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 Company.








/s/
                Michael D. CahillMichael
                D. CahillChief
                Financial Officer and SecretaryMay
                12, 2006
[No. 49001-0-I.

Division One.

October 21, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. A.A.E., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-8-01439-2, Julie Spector, J., entered July 15, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
exv4w4






EXHIBIT 4.4








November 24, 2009




Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549





	 	Re:	 	The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company — Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009





Ladies and Gentlemen:




     The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, an Ohio corporation (“Scotts Miracle-Gro”), is today filing
its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 (the “Form 10-K”).



     Neither Scotts Miracle-Gro nor any of its consolidated subsidiaries has outstanding any
instrument or agreement with respect to its long-term debt, other than those filed or incorporated
by reference as an exhibit to the Form 10-K, under which the total amount of long-term debt
authorized exceeds ten percent (10%) of the total assets of Scotts Miracle-Gro and its subsidiaries
on a consolidated basis. In accordance with the provisions of Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of SEC
Regulation S-K, Scotts Miracle-Gro hereby agrees to furnish to the SEC, upon request, a copy of
each such instrument or agreement defining the rights of holders of long-term debt of Scotts
Miracle-Gro or the rights of holders of long-term debt of one of Scotts Miracle-Gro’s consolidated
subsidiaries, in each case which is not being filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to
the Form 10-K.



Very truly yours,




THE SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY




/s/ David C. Evans




David C. Evans

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




14111 Scottslawn Road Marysville, OH 43041 937-644-0011

www.scotts.com
§ 1912.30 Quorum; committee procedure. ( a ) A majority of the members of any advisory committee, including the Construction Safety Advisory Committee, shall constitute a quorum, so long as there are present at least one member who is a representative of employees and one member who is a representative of employers.
( b ) In the absence of its chairman, the committee may designate a member to preside at any meeting thereof.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney McQueen, Appellant.

[699 NYS2d 419]

—Appeal by the defendant from three judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), all rendered July 14, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree under Indictment No. 1805/96, attempted robbery in the first degree under Indictment No. 1879/ 96, and robbery in the first degree under Indictment No. 1880/ 96, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in granting the People’s motion to consolidate Indictment Nos. 1805/96, 1879/96, and 1880/96 is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in consolidating the indictments *(see,*CPL 200.20 [2] [c], [d]; [4], {5]). The record does not demonstrate actual prejudice suffered by the defendant. Evidence of the defendant’s guilt of the charges under each indictment was presented separately to the jury, and the defendant had ample opportunity to defend against the charges. The court instructed the jury to consider each charge on its own merit *(see, People v Rose,*187 AD2d 617; *People v Moses,*169 AD2d 786).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
[Cite as State v. Lee, 124 Ohio St.3d 119, 2009-Ohio-6544.] 

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. LEE, APPELLANT. 

[Cite as State v. Lee, 124 Ohio St.3d 119, 2009-Ohio-6544.] 

Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of State v. Lester. 

(No. 2009-0402 — Submitted September 30, 2009 — Decided 

December 17, 2009.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Van Wert County, No. 15-08-06, 

180 Ohio App.3d 739, 2009-Ohio-299, 907 N.E.2d 348. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority 

of State v. Lester, 123 Ohio St.3d 396, 2009-Ohio-4225, 916 N.E.2d 1038. 

 MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Katherine A. Szudy, Assistant 

Public Defender, for appellant. 

______________________
§ 1915.75 Access to and guarding of dry docks and marine railways. The provisions of this section shall apply to ship repairing, shipbuilding and shipbreaking. ( a ) A gangway, ramp or permanent stairway of not less than 20 inches walking surface, of adequate strength, maintained in safe repair and securely fastened, shall be provided between a floating dry dock and the pier or bulkhead.
( b ) Each side of such gangway, ramp or permanent stairway, including those which are used for access to wing walls from dry dock floors, shall have a railing with a midrail. Such railings on gangways or ramps shall be approximately 42 inches in height; and railings on permanent stairways shall be not less than approximately 30 or more than approximately 34 inches in height. Rails shall be of wood, pipe, chain, wire, or rope, and shall be kept taut at all times.
( c ) Railings meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section shall be provided on the means of access to and from the floors of graving docks.
( d ) Railings approximately 42 inches in height, with a midrail, shall be provided on the edges of wing walls of floating dry docks and on edges of graving docks. Sections of the railings may be temporarily removed where necessary to permit line handling while a vessel is entering or leaving the dock.
( e ) When employees are working on the floor of a floating dry dock where they are exposed to the hazard of falling into the water, the end of the dry dock shall be equipped with portable stanchions and 42 inch railings with a midrail. When such a railing would be impracticable or ineffective, other effective means shall be provided to prevent employees from falling into the water.
( f ) Access to wing walls from floors of dry docks shall be by ramps, permanent stairways or ladders meeting the applicable requirements of § 1915.72.
( g ) Catwalks on stiles of marine railways shall be no less than 20 inches wide and shall have on at least one side a guardrail and midrail meeting the requirements of § 1915.71(j) (1) and (2).
[47 FR 16986, Apr. 20, 1982, as amended at 67 FR 44542, July 3, 2002]
§ ̈¦15 

§ ̈¦15 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management 

HiLine District 

Greater Sage-Grouse &

Grassland Bird Priority Areas

Comparison of Alternatives 

¬
 Maps show the proposed

Priority areas for Greater SageGrouse and grassland birds

under Alternatives B, C and E. 

Habitat and conditions would 

allow wildlife and aquatic 

species movement between large

blocks of habitat and between 

seasonal habitats on a localized 

and landscape scale. 

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

Blackfeet Indian 

Browning 

Reservation

GLACIER 

£¤89

Cut Bank 

TOOLE
 

Shelby 

232 

LIBERTY HILL PHILLIPS 

2 

")

£¤

BLAINE
 VALLEY
 

Havre 

Chester 

66 

191 

Fort Benton 

£¤

CMR National

Wildlife Refuge 

")

£¤87

Chinook 

Malta Ft. Belknap Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation Indian Reservation Glasgow

CHOUTEAU
 

Map 2.17 

Alternative B 

0 25 50 1:1,750,000 

Miles 

Glacier A Allb be er rt taa National Park SSaasskka attcchheewwaan n

GLACIER 

£¤89

Browning 

Blackfeet Indian

Reservation 

Cut Bank 

232 

LIBERTY TOOLE HILL PHILLIPS

")

Shelby £¤2

BLAINE
 

VALLEY
 

Havre 

Chester Chinook 

This map is intended for display purposes.

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land

Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or
 

completeness of these data for individual or
 

aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not

intended by the BLM. This map may not meet

National Map Accuracy Standards. This product
 

was developed through digital means and

information may be updated without notification. Alternatives C

&

E (Preferred)

11 66

44

2 2

77 33 5 5

") £¤

£¤87 

66 

191 

Fort Benton 

CMR National

Wildlife Refuge 

Ft. Belknap Malta Rocky Boy's 

Indian Reservation Indian Reservation

Glasgow

CHOUTEAU
 

MTFWP Regions 

Priority Areas

Grassland Bird/ Greater Sage-Grouse Priority

Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority

RMP Boundary

County

Interstate 

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

Highway or State Route 

Towns
§ 1910.420 Safe practices manual. ( a ) *General.* The employer shall develop and maintain a safe practices manual which shall be made available at the dive location to each dive team member.
( b ) *Contents.* ( 1 ) The safe practices manual shall contain a copy of this standard and the employer's policies for implementing the requirements of this standard.
( 2 ) For each diving mode engaged in, the safe practices manual shall include: ( i ) Safety procedures and checklists for diving operations;
( ii ) Assignments and responsibilities of the dive team members;
( iii ) Equipment procedures and checklists; and
( iv ) Emergency procedures for fire, equipment failure, adverse environmental conditions, and medical illness and injury.
[42 FR 37668, July 22, 1977, as amended at 49 FR 18295, Apr. 30, 1984]
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-19-00299-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from Probate Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. PR-2016-00301

Before Gabriel, Kerr, and Birdwell, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion on Rehearing

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

RG WILLIAMS FAMILY ENTERPRISES, LP, A TEXAS LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON REHEARING

We have considered appellant’s “Unopposed Motion to Rehear, Set Aside

Dismissal Order, and Remand Pursuant to Settlement.” Because the parties have 

settled all matters in the appeal, it is the court’s opinion that the motion should be 

granted. We withdraw this court’s prior opinion and judgment of April 2, 2020. We 

set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand this case 

to the trial court to render judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B); Innovative Office Sys., Inc. v. Johnson, 911 S.W.2d 387, 388 

(Tex. 1995).

Each party must bear its own costs of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: April 16, 2020
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.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

                    The meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Severe Accident Management scheduled for May 18, 2000, in Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland has been canceled. Notice of this meeting was previously published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on Monday, May 8, 2000 (65 FR 26644).                 

Further information contact: Mr. Paul A. Boehnert, cognizant ACRS staff engineer, (telephone 301/415-8065) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EDT). 

Dated: May 11, 2000.

Howard J. Larson, 

Acting Associate Director for Technical Support, ACRS/ACNW.

[FR Doc. 00-12552 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
§ 1910.12 Construction work. ( a ) *Standards.* The standards prescribed in part 1926 of this chapter are adopted as occupational safety and health standards under section 6 of the Act and shall apply, according to the provisions thereof, to every employment and place of employment of every employee engaged in construction work. Each employer shall protect the employment and places of employment of each of his employees engaged in construction work by complying with the appropriate standards prescribed in this paragraph.
( b ) *Definition.* For purposes of this section, *Construction work* means work for construction, alteration, and/or repair, including painting and decorating. See discussion of these terms in § 1926.13 of this title.
( c ) *Construction Safety Act distinguished.* This section adopts as occupational safety and health standards under section 6 of the Act the standards which are prescribed in part 1926 of this chapter. Thus, the standards (substantive rules) published in subpart C and the following subparts of part 1926 of this chapter are applied. This section does not incorporate subparts A and B of part 1926 of this chapter. Subparts A and B have pertinence only to the application of section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (the Construction Safety Act). For example, the interpretation of the term “subcontractor” in paragraph (c) of § 1926.13 of this chapter is significant in discerning the coverage of the Construction Safety Act and duties thereunder. However, the term “subcontractor” has no significance in the application of the Act, which was enacted under the Commerce Clause and which establishes duties for “employers” which are not dependent for their application upon any contractual relationship with the Federal Government or upon any form of Federal financial assistance.
( d ) For the purposes of this part, to the extent that it may not already be included in paragraph (b) of this section, “construction work” includes the erection of new electric transmission and distribution lines and equipment, and the alteration, conversion, and improvement of the existing transmission and distribution lines and equipment.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation of our report dated February 4, 2002,
on the financial statements of Lexon, Inc. (the "Company") at December 31, 2001,
for the periods from inception (December 16, 1997) to December 31, 2001, and for
the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000, included in this Form 10-KSB Annual
Report of Lexon, Inc. as of December 31, 2001, into the Company's Registration
Statements on Form SB-2 (File numbers 333-42550, 333-47244, and 333-67574) and
Form S-8 (File numbers 333-30828, 333-31386, 333-44126, and 333-68638).

         Our report, dated February 4, 2002, contains an explanatory paragraph
that states that Lexon, Inc. is a development stage company with insufficient
revenues to fund development and operating expenses, which raises substantial
doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements
do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that
uncertainty.


/s/ TULLIUS TAYLOR SARTAIN & SARTAIN LLP

Tulsa, Oklahoma
April 1, 2002
128 STAT. 1828 PUBLIC LAW 113–155—AUG. 8, 2014 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4360: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

June 17, considered and passed House. 

July 31, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–155 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Forest Service for the Grandfather 

Ranger District located at 109 Lawing Drive in Nebo, North Carolina, as the 

‘‘Jason Crisp Forest Service Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF JASON CRISP FOREST SERVICE 

BUILDING, NEBO, NORTH CAROLINA. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the Grandfather Ranger District of the United States Forest Service located at 109 Lawing 

Drive in Nebo, North Carolina, shall be known and designated 

as the ‘‘Jason Crisp Forest Service Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Jason Crisp Forest Service Building’’. 

Approved August 8, 2014. 

Aug. 8, 2014 

[H.R. 4360] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
§ 1401.3 Procedure in the event of a demand for production, disclosure, or testimony. ( a ) Any request for records of the Service, whether it be by letter, by subpoena duces tecum or by any other written demand, shall be handled pursuant to the procedures established in subpart B of this part, and shall comply with the rules governing public disclosure.
( b ) Whenever any subpoena or subpoena duces tecum calling for production of records or testimony as described above shall have been served upon any officer, employee or other person as noted in § 1401.2(b), he will, unless notified otherwise appear in answer thereto, and unless otherwise expressly directed by the Director, respectfully decline to produce or present such records or to give such testimony, by reason of the prohibitions of this section, and shall state that the production of the record(s) involved will be handled by the procedures established in this part.