alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Abraham V. DeWitt *v.*Emma L. Steuder, as Executrix, etc.

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

*Filed May 27, 1889.)*

Attorney and client—Right oe party to change attorney.

The fact that the attorney of a party, who is obnoxious to her, claims a lien by an agreement with such party, of doubtful validity, upon a note, which may possibly be collected in the action, should not preclude said party from confiding the further charge of her litigation to another attorney of her choice.

Appeal from order substituting attorneys for defendant.

*T. K. & L.*Fuller, opposed, and attorney for F. W. Talbot, app’ltj *George B.*Warner, for motion and resp’t.

Landon, J.

The right of the defendant to change her attorney cannot be disputed, and the only question is as to the terms upon which her former attorney shall be suspended. The special term has allowed him seventy-five dollars for his compensation, which he accepts as sufficient for his services in this case. He claims, however, that by virtue of a contract with the defendant he is entitled to one-half of a promissory note for §2,000, upon its collection, and by the answer which he served for the defendant its collection is sought in this case. The defendant made the contract, but did so after said attorney advised her that the note was not collectible. The special term expressed the opinion that the attempt to collect the note in this action is improperly made, and that a separate action or proceeding for that purpose may be necessary. We cannot say that it is impossible or improbable that the parties will conclude that the claim upon the note may as well be determined in this action as in any other.

The special term has not determined whether the advice of the attorney that the note was uncollectible, affected the validity of the contract between the attorney and his client. There will be no occasion to determine it unless it transpires that the advice was bad and induced the contract.

The fact that the attorney, obnoxious to her, claims alien by agreement of doubtful validity, upon a note which may possibly be collected in the action, ought not to preclude the defendant from confiding the further charge of her litigation to an attorney of her choice. His employment cannot be continued without prejudice to the rights of the defendant, and if he suffers damages by a broken contract, he must pursue his remedy as he may be advised.

Order affirmed without costs.

Ingalls, J., concurs ; Learned, P. J., not acting. .
## AE**O2014 Early Release Overview** 

**Release Date: December 16, 2013 Full Report Release Date: Early**  **Spring 2014**

**Figure 1. U.S. liquid fuels supply by source,1970-2040 (million barrels per day)**

**Crude oil production**  **(excluding tight**

**oil) Tight oil** 

**production Natural gas** 

**plant liquids Other** **Net petroleum and biofuel**  **imports** 1970 9.64 0.00 1.66 0.36 3.16

9.46 0.00 1.69 0.38 3.70 9.44 0.00 1.74 0.394.52 9.21 0.00 1.74 0.45 6.02 8.77 0.00 1.69 0.48 5.89 1975 8.37 0.00 1.63 0.46 5.85

8.13 0.00 1.60 0.48 7.09 8.24 0.00 1.62 0.52 8.56 8.71 0.00 1.57 0.50 8.00 8.55 0.00 1.58 0.53 7.99 1980 8.60 0.00 1.57 0.60 6.36

8.57 0.00 1.61 0.51 5.40 8.65 0.00 1.55 0.554.30 8.69 0.00 1.56 0.51 4.31 8.88 0.00 1.63 0.594.72 1985 8.97 0.00 1.61 0.60 4.29

8.68 0.00 1.55 0.66 5.44 8.35 0.00 1.60 0.69 5.91 8.14 0.00 1.62 0.71 6.59 7.61 0.00 1.55 0.72 7.20 1990 7.36 0.00 1.56 0.73 7.16

7.42 0.01 1.66 0.77 6.63 7.17 0.01 1.70 0.84 6.94 6.85 0.01 1.74 0.84 7.62 6.66 0.00 1.73 0.85 8.05 1995 6.56 0.00 1.76 0.86 7.88

6.46 0.00 1.83 0.90 8.50 6.45 0.00 1.82 0.93 9.16 6.25 0.00 1.76 0.98 9.76 5.88 0.00 1.85 0.98 9.91 2000 5.57 0.26 1.91 1.0610.42

5.55 0.25 1.87 1.0210.90 5.50 0.25 1.88 1.0910.55 5.43 0.25 1.72 1.1611.24 5.16 0.26 1.81 1.2812.09 20054.89 0.29 1.72 1.2612.54

4.79 0.31 1.74 1.3712.34 4.72 0.34 1.78 1.4712.02 4.34 0.61 1.78 1.6411.10 4.67 0.69 1.91 1.72 9.672010 4.61 0.87 2.07 1.92 9.47 4.35 1.31 2.18 1.98 8.51 4.24 2.25 2.40 2.17 7.50 4.25 3.48 2.49 2.17 6.37 4.464.07 2.51 2.21 5.41 20154.54 4.49 2.56 2.31 5.26

4.874.67 2.63 2.30 4.88 4.84 4.72 2.66 2.32 4.94 4.82 4.76 2.67 2.32 4.96 4.834.78 2.67 2.32 4.94 2020 4.764.79 2.65 2.32 5.00

4.62 4.80 2.61 2.32 5.13 4.54 4.74 2.70 2.31 5.13 4.51 4.68 2.79 2.30 5.11 4.464.61 2.84 2.28 5.13 20254.464.54 2.87 2.27 5.12

4.364.47 2.90 2.25 5.19 4.254.42 2.92 2.24 5.28 4.174.34 2.94 2.24 5.37 4.12 4.26 2.95 2.23 5.42 2030 4.14 4.17 2.98 2.23 5.41

4.084.08 3.01 2.23 5.48 4.09 3.98 3.03 2.23 5.51 4.16 3.88 3.04 2.23 5.49 4.20 3.79 3.05 2.22 5.51 20354.18 3.69 3.05 2.22 5.61

4.17 3.58 3.03 2.22 5.73 4.21 3.49 3.06 2.22 5.77 4.17 3.39 3.04 2.22 5.93 4.24 3.29 3.01 2.24 5.97 2040 4.28 3.20 2.98 2.24 6.02
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION



         I, Irwin Gross, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Amalgamated Technologies,
Inc.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

         4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

         5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

         a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: May 21, 2004


/s/ IRWIN GROSS
---------------
Irwin Gross
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
§ 1915.133 Hand tools. The provisions of this section shall apply to ship repairing, shipbuilding and shipbreaking. ( a ) Employers shall not issue or permit the use of unsafe hand tools.
( b ) Wrenches, including crescent, pipe, end and socket wrenches, shall not be used when jaws are sprung to the point that slippage occurs.
( c ) Impact tools, such as drift pins, wedges, and chisels, shall be kept free of mushroomed heads.
( d ) The wooden handles of tools shall be kept free of splinters or cracks and shall be kept tight in the tool.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-2604NE

_____________ Juneal D. Pratt, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District v. * of Nebraska. * Robert Houston, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: February 24, 1999

Filed: March 3, 1999

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Juneal D. Pratt appeals the district court's denial of Pratt's petition for writ of habeas corpus. A review of the record shows the district court's decision is clearly correct. Because the appeal involves the straightforward application of settled principles of law, a discussion of the issues will serve no useful purpose. We thus affirm the district court without an extended opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### DURBIN & KORYTA CO v TANNENBAUM et.

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9785.

Decided March 18, 1929

Harry R Scobie, Ceveand, for Co.

Bishop & Bishop, Cleveland, for Tannenbaum.

*267VICKERY, PJ.

Where a real estate broker has been employed and he is the means of procuring the sale, if the seller of the property sells direct to this purchaser at a lower price than the real estate man or broker had been given authority to sell it, the broker could not thus b'e deprived of the right to compensation. The broker was the moving cause of producing the purchaser, and it would be inequitable and unfair, and would open the door wide for fraud if, after a prospective purchaser has been introduced to the sellers, they then, by a simple act of their own terminate their relation with the broker and make a sale direct to the purchaser and thus defeat the broker in his right to recover compensation.

We are not saying that there could not be a mutual rescission of the contract and all rights of the brokers given up, so that the seller might deal with the customer that had been theretofore introduced to them by the brokers, but the rescission of that contract must be by mutual consent. An owner of the property cannot himself terminate that relation without the consent of the broker, and particularly where he immediately deals with a customer produced by the broker.

We are cited the case of Dethloff vs. Starbuck, 116 OS. 29, by the plaintiff in error, who claims it to be a case sustaining his contention. We do not think an examination of that ease will bear out his contention at all.

We think the second syllabus is much more in point in the instant case than the first syllabus of the case.

We think an examination of this record will show that the plaintiff brokers were entitled to their commission and the court erred in holding, as he did for the defendants.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ, concur.
§ 1908.3 Eligibility and funding. ( a ) *State eligibility.* Any state may enter into an agreement with the Assistant Secretary to perform consultation for private sector employers; except that a state having a plan approved under section 18 of the Act is eligible to participate in the program only if that Plan does not include provisions for federally funded consultation to private sector employers as a part of its plan.
( b ) *Reimbursement.* ( 1 ) The Assistant Secretary will reimburse 90 percent of the costs incurred under a Cooperative Agreement entered into pursuant to this part. Approved training of State staff operating under a Cooperative Agreement and specified out-of-State travel by such staff will be fully reimbursed.
( 2 ) Reimbursement to States under this part is limited to costs incurred in providing consultation to private sector employers only. ( i ) In all States with Plans approved under section 18 of the Act, consultation provided to State and local governments, as well as the remaining range of voluntary compliance activities referred to in 29 CFR 1902.4(c)(2)(xiii), will not be affected by the provisions of this part. Federal reimbursement for these activities will be made in accordance with the provisions of section 23(g) of the Act.
( ii ) In States without Plans approved under section 18, no Federal reimbursement for consultation provided to State and local governments will be allowed, although this activity may be conducted independently by a State with 100 percent State funding.
[49 FR 25094, June 19, 1984, as amended at 65 FR 64291, Oct. 26, 2000]
#### § 1602.45 Additional reporting requirements.

The Commission reserves the right to require reports, other than that designated as the Elementary-Secondary Information Report EEO-5, about the employment practices of private or public individual school systems, districts, or schools, or groups thereof, whenever, in its judgment, special or supplemental reports are necessary to accomplish the purposes of title VII, the ADA, GINA, or the PWFA. Any system for the requirement of such reports will be established in accordance with the procedures referred to in section 709(c) of title VII, section 107 of the ADA, section 207(a) of GINA, or section 104 of the PWFA and as otherwise prescribed by law.

[38 FR 27619, Sept. 25, 1973, as amended at 56 FR 35756, July 26, 1991; 74 FR 63983, Dec. 7, 2009; 89 FR 11170, Feb. 14, 2024]
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v PAPACOSTA

Case No. 86-060 AC

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

October 8, 1986

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Jim Smith, Attorney General, and Susan Odzer Hugentugler, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Harry Prehish for appellee.

Before TENDRICH, HENDERSON, SHAPIRO, JJ.

*124OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, the STATE OF FLORIDA, appeals from an Order of the lower Court granting Appellee’s Motion to Suppress the results of a breath test. For the reasons set forth herein, we reverse.

The trial Court was under the opinion that Appellee was not properly informed of his rights pertaining to § 316.1932 Fla. Stats, and suppressed the breath test. With respect to the learned trial Judge, it is this Court’s opinion he improperly interpreted the implied consent law. Firstly, Appellee was properly stopped for weaving in his lane of traffic. The Officer detected an odor of alcohol on Appellee’s breath, administered field sobriety tests which Appellee failed, all of which led to Appellee’s arrest for driving under the influence.

Subsection 1(a) of the implied consent law provides, in part, as follows:

> Any person who accepts the privilege extended by the law of the State of operating a motor vehicle within the State shall ... be deemed to have given his consent to submit to an approved chemical test of his breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood ... if he is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. . . .”.

There is no question but that Appellee was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. He was lawfully stopped for weaving in his lane of traffic. Based on the foregoing, the implied consent law requires Appellee to submit to a breath test and the Officer is not required to advise Appellee of any rights.

Based on the foregoing, the Order suppressing the Breath Test is vacated and the matter remanded to the trial Court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10Q of UC Hub Group, Inc. for the Quarter ending January 31, 2009, I, Larry Wilcox, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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/ Larry D. WilcoxLarry D. WilcoxPrincipal Executive Officer & Principal Financial OfficerMarch 12, 2009
#### § 1209.04 Open meetings.

Every portion of every Board meeting shall be open to public observation except as otherwise provided by § 1209.05 of this part.
| THE LACLEDE GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES                                                   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                       |   |   |   |
| SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT                                                             |
|                                                                                       |   |   |   |
|   Subsidiaries of The Laclede Group, Inc. (Parent)                               |   | Percent of Voting Stock Owned |   |
|                                                                                       |   |   |   |
| Laclede Gas Company                                                                        |   | 100% |   |
| Laclede Pipeline Company                                                                   |   | 100% |   |
| Laclede Investment LLC*                                                                    |   | 100% |   |
| Laclede Development Company**                                                              |   | 100% |   |
|                                                                                       |   |   |   |
| *Subsidiary Company of Laclede Investment LLC                                              |   |   |   |
| Laclede Energy Resources, Inc.                                                             |   | 100% |   |
| Subsidiary Company of Laclede Energy Resources, Inc.                                       |   |   |   |
| Laclede Gas Family Services, Inc.                                                          |   | 100% |   |
| **Subsidiary Company of Laclede Development Company                                        |   |   |   |
| Laclede Venture Corp.                                                                      |   | 100% |   |
|                                                                                       |   |   |   |
| All of the above corporations have been organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. |   |
Editorial Note on Part 1615
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1615 appear at 73 FR 39866, July 11, 2008.

§ 1615.150 Program accessibility: Existing facilities. ( a ) *General.* The Commission shall operate each program or activity so that the program or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. This paragraph does not— ( 1 ) Necessarily require the Commission to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;
( 2 ) Require the Commission to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where Commission personnel believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the program or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, the Commission has the burden of proving that compliance with § 1615.150(a) would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the Chair of the Commission after considering all Commission resources available for use in the funding and operation of the conducted program or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, the Commission shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits and services of the program or activity.
( b ) *Methods.* The Commission may comply with the requirements of this section through such means as redesign of equipment, reassignment of services to accessible buildings, assignment of aides to beneficiaries, home visits, delivery of services at alternate accessible sites, alteration of existing facilities and construction of new facilities, use of accessible rolling stock, or any other methods that result in making its programs or activities readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The Commission is not required to make structural changes in existing facilities where other methods are effective in achieving compliance with this section. The Commission, in making alterations to existing buildings, shall meet accessibility requirements to the extent compelled by the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), and any regulations implementing it. In choosing among available methods for meeting the requirements of this section, the Commission shall give priority to those methods that offer programs and activities to qualified individuals with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate.
[54 FR 22749, May 26, 1989, as amended at 73 FR 39868, July 11, 2008]
§ 1919.50 Eligibility for accreditation to certificate shore-based material handling devices covered by § 1917.50 of this chapter, safety and health regulations for marine terminals. ( a ) A person applying for accreditation to carry out certification activities and to issue and maintain the requisite records must be: ( 1 ) A manufacturer of cranes or derricks or of specialized equipment of the type for which accreditation application is made, or a person or organization representing such a manufacturer in a technical capacity; or
( 2 ) Technically experienced and qualified to carry out examinations and/or testing, as applicable, of vessels or shore-based equipment or gear of the type for which accreditation application is made.
( b ) The owner of shore-based equipment affected may designate a member of his organization to carry out certification functions respecting the owner's equipment, on the following conditions: ( 1 ) The designee is technically experienced and qualified in the inspection and maintenance or design of the type of equipment involved, aside from employment as an operator only.
( 2 ) The designee has applied to an accredited, nationally operating certification agency and has been granted appointment or equivalent recognition by that agency as a surveyor for the purpose intended.
( 3 ) Certification activities carried out by the designee are cleared through the offices, and are subject to the approval, of the accredited certificating agency. When equipment is found satisfactory for use upon any survey, said equipment may be used pending receipt of notification of such approval or any disapproval.
( 4 ) In cases where equipment is certificated by a person designated by the equipment owner, the cognizant accredited certification agency retains the right to inspect such equipment as desired and convenient in order to ascertain the adequacy of the certification activity performed.
( c ) Accreditation to conduct such nondestructive examination as may be a part of any certification activity may be granted to applicants found competent and equipped to carry out this activity.
( d ) Unless exemptions are granted at the discretion of the Assistant Secretary in cases of practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship, applicants for accreditation as specified in this section shall be prepared to carry out all necessary functions, except that any requisite wire rope tests, nondestructive examinations, and heat treatments may be carried out by the manufacturer of the gear concerned or by another person accredited specifically for these purposes.
( e ) A person applying for accreditation shall have a satisfactory record of relevant experience and performance, and shall be in sound financial condition.