alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hough *vs.*Gray.

ALBANY,

January, 1838.

Where an absolute guaranty is endorsed upon a note payable to A. B. or bearer at the time of the making thereof, and the note and guaranty are transferred by the payee, the assignee may maintain an action in his own name against the guarantor, without showing a demand of payment of the maker of the note, and notice of non-payment.

It seems, had the endorsement been in blank, that the grantor might have insisted upon the privileges of an endorser, and required proof of demand and notice.

Error from the Warren common pleas. Gray sued Hough in a justice’s court and declared on a *guaranty*entered into by the defendant, *endorsed on a promissory note*made by Daniel Moon for the sum of $45, dated 7th January, 1834, and payable to John Cameron or bearer, on the 1st February 1835. The *guaranty*was in these words : *“*This “ may certify that I guarantee the payment of the. within “ note—dated 7 January, 1834;” and was signed by the defendant. The justice rendered judgment for the plaintiff, The defendant *appealed*to the Warren common pleas. On the trial in that courtt he execution of the note and “guaranty was proved, and it was further proved that the consideration of the note was property sold by Cameron to Moon, that Cameron refused to sell unless Hough would become security for the consideration money, and that Hough consented to become surety, and the note and guaranty were signed at the same time and delivered to Cameron. Subsequently Cameron transferred the note and guaranty to one Osborn, and Grey afterwards ^became the holder of the same, and brought suit thereon. On proof of these facts the plaintiff rested, and the defendant moved for a nonsuit on the grounds, 1. that a suit on the guaranty could be maintained *only in the name of*Cameron, the guaranty not being transferrable as negotiable paper, and 2. that at all events an action could not be maintained without proof of demand of payment from the maker of the note, and notice of non-payment to the defendant. The nonsuit was denied, and _the jury, under the charge of the court, found a verdict *203for the plaintiff, on which judgment was rendered. The defendant having excepted to the decision and charge of the éourt, sued out a writ of error.

*W. Hay, jun.*for the plaintiff in error.

*E. H. Rosekrans,*for the defendant in error.

*By the Court,*

Cowen, J.

The *note*was absolutely payable and therefore negotiable within the statute. Had the *endorsement*been *blank,*I should think the defendant below might have insisted on the privilege of an *endorser*and reposed himself on the want of a demand and notice; but he endorsed *an absolute guaranty*in so many words. The court below were clearly right, therefore, in holding that'he made himself a joint and several promissor with the admitted maker. I do not go over the authorities, having had occasion, very recently, to examine all that have been cited, with several others, in *Dean*v. *Hall,*17 Wendell, 214, and felt then, as T do still on a re-examination of the same question, perfectly clear in the distinction I have mentioned.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT
      32(a)





This
      Certificate is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
      subject to the liability of that section. This Certification shall not be
      incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other document
      pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in such
      filing.








Certification
      Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


Of
      Title
      18 of the United States Code





In
      connection with the Annual Report of the Companies (as defined below) on Form
      10-K (the “Reports”) for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael G. Morris,
      the
      chief executive officer of





American
      Electric Power Company, Inc.


AEP
      Generating Company


AEP
      Texas
      Central Company


AEP
      Texas
      North Company


Appalachian
      Power Company


Columbus
      Southern Power Company


Indiana
      Michigan Power Company


Kentucky
      Power Company


Ohio
      Power Company


Public
      Service Company of Oklahoma


Southwestern
      Electric Power Company





(the
      "Companies"), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 that, based on my knowledge (i)
      the Reports fully comply with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
      Reports fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of the Companies.














/s/
      Michael G. Morris


Michael
      G. Morris


Chief
      Executive Officer








February
      28, 2006








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric
      Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request.
###### Editorial Note on [Part 1926](/current/title-29/part-1926?toc=1)

#### Editorial Notes:

1. At [44 FR 8577](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-8577), Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at [44 FR 20940](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-20940), Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of [29 CFR part 1926](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/part-1926) together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in [29 CFR part 1910](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/part-1910), which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at [84 FR 21597](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/84-FR-21597), May 14, 2019.

#### § 1926.1111 4-Aminodiphenyl.

Note:

The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.1003 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.1003).

[[61 FR 31433](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31433), June 20, 1996]
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.14 Federal contract for “mixed” types of performance. ( a ) It is the intent of the Congress to provide safety and health protection of Federal, federally financed, or federally assisted construction. See, for example, H. Report No. 91-241, 91st Cong., first session, p. 1 (1969). Thus, it is clear that when a Federal contract calls for mixed types of performance, such as both manufacturing and construction, section 107 would apply to the construction. By its express terms, section 107 applies to a contract which is “for construction, alteration, and/or repair.” Such a contract is not required to be exclusively for such services. The application of the section is not limited to contracts which permit an overall characterization as “construction contracts.” The text of section 107 is not so limited.
( b ) When the mixed types of performances include both construction and manufacturing, see also § 1926.15(b) concerning the relationship between the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act and section 107.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

FRANK LANDON ADAMS , JR. ,

Appellant ,

v. Case No. 5D 16

- 1914
STATE OF FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Opinion filed December 22, 2016 3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam County , Scott C. Dupont , Judge. Frank Landon Adams, Jr

. , Cross City, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

. Appellant, Frank Landon Adams, Jr., is appealing the postconviction court ’ s denial
of his “ Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence ” filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.800(a)

. In Ground One, Sub

- Claim One , Adams asserts that his sentence is illegal because the trial judge, as opposed to the jury before whom he was tried, made the2

finding that he was a danger to the public. Adams further claimed that by doing so, the trial court circumvented the statutory maximum sentence in section 775.082(10) , Florida Statutes (2012), and disregarded the U.S. Supreme Court ’ s holdings in Apprendi and Blakely

. 1 The lower court appears to have misconstrued Adams ’ claim because in denying relief, the court simply found that Adams ’ upward departure sentence was legal
because the trial judge found Adams to be a danger to the public. The lower court failed
to address Adams ’ allegati on of an Apprendi/Blakely violation. We reverse and remand as to this ground with instructions for the trial court to consider and rule on the merits of
Adams ’ Apprendi/Blakely claim. We affirm all other issues without further discussion. 2
AFFIRMED in pa rt , REVERSED in part , and REMANDED with instructions.

COHEN , LAMBERT , and EDWARDS , JJ., concur.

1 Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000); Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004)

.

2 Appellant did not address Ground Two of his motion in his brief; therefore, it is deemed to be abandoned. See Ward v. State , 19 So. 3d 1060, 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 19

- 20489

Maxim Crane Works, L.P.,

Plaintiff

— Appellant

,

versus

Zurich American Insurance Company,

Defendant

— Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18

- CV

- 03667

Before Smith, Ho, and Oldham, Circuit Judges

.
Per Curiam : *

The parties to this insurance coverage dispute stipulate to all relevant

facts and agree that th e outcome turns on a single question of statutory
interpretation: Who counts as an “employee” under the Texas Anti

Indemnity Act? See Tex

. Ins. Code §§ 151.102, 151.103. Specifically, if

an individual is employed by a general contractor, is that individual also an

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### FILED

May 18, 2022

Lyle W . Cayce

Clerk Case: 19-20489 Document: 00516323398 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2022No. 19

- 20489

2 “employee” of the subcontractor , such that the employee exception of the

Act applies ?

We certified this question to the Supreme Court of Te xas. And that

court has now answered: No, the employee exception does not apply. Maxim

Crane Works, L.P. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. , 642 S.W.3d 551, 553 (Tex. 2022)

. We accordingly affirm

. Case: 19-20489 Document: 00516323398 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2022
§ 1912a.14 Petitions for changes in the rules; complaints. ( a ) Any interested person shall have the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of rules published in this part. Any such petition will be considered in a reasonable time. Prompt notice shall be given of the denial in whole or in part of any petition. Except in affirming a prior denial or when the denial is self-explanatory the notice shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the reasons therefor.
( b ) Any advisory committee member or any other aggrieved person may file a written complaint with the Assistant Secretary alleging noncompliance with the rules in this part. Any complaint must be timely filed, but in no case shall any complaint be filed later than thirty (30) days following the day on which the act of alleged noncompliance occurred. Any complaint shall be acted upon promptly and a written notice of the disposition of the complaint shall be provided to the complainant.
( c ) Complaints and petitions should make reference to this § 1912a.14 and be filed and addressed as follows:
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health United States Department of Labor Washington, D.C. 20210.
# AGENCY:

 Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

 Final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

                         This document allots Channel 294C3 at Alberton, Montana, in response to a petition filed by Mountain West Broadcasting.                         *See*64 FR 57836, October 27, 1999. The coordinates for Channel 294C3 at Alberton are 47-00-06 NL and 114-28-21 WL. Canadian concurrence has been received for the allotment of Channel 294C3 at Alberton. With this action, this proceeding is terminated. A filing window for Channel 294C3 at Alberton will not be opened at this time. Instead, the issue of opening a filing window for this channel will be addressed by the Commission in a subsequent order.                     

# DATES:

 Effective February 22, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-305, adopted December 29, 1999 and released January 7, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800, facsimile (202) 857-3805. 

# List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting. 

Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 

# PART 73—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows: 

Authority:47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336. 

§ 73.202 

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Montana, is amended by adding Alberton, Channel 294C3. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 00-1262 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
§ 1960.84 Purpose. ( a ) Executive Order 12196 provides that the Secretary shall “facilitate the exchange of ideas and information throughout the Government about occupational safety and health.”
( b ) Consistent with this objective, the Secretary will continue to sponsor and/or provide guidance for those Field Federal Safety and Health Councils now established and in operation, and establish new field councils as necessary. The field councils will consist primarily of qualified representatives of local area Federal field activities whose duties pertain to occupational safety and health, and also of representatives of recognized local labor organizations, or other civilian employee organizations, at local area Federal field activities. For the purpose of this subpart the definition of field activity will be provided by each agency.
'''Ii

Adams. Kevin (OST)

=-

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Matthew Leitner <jmsairport@daktel.com>

Friday, January 17, 2014 9:16 AM

Adams, Kevin (OST)

manager@devilslakeairport.com; Jim Boyd; Brusegaard, Tom (Hoeven);

jack_huerter@heitkamp.senate.gov; Wanner, Kyle c.; Gibbens, Lisa; mayor@dvlnd.com;

Katie Andersen; Devany, Dennis (OSn

Great Lakes Schedule

GLSchedu le_1212014.pdf

< ••

~-:;

»

High

Good Morning Kevin,

_-. --- T' j > I

(;'.- .~.

--i(f2~~:j

0""1.'--1

.:0°::;.:

m~m

::o~z

»--l-; -loa

.. C)_.....•. --"

Pursuant to our conversation this morning, I've attached Great Lakes' new schedule for Jamestown, efl~ctiveJ~imary 21,

2014. It illustrates one round-trip flight on a Beech 1900 to and from MSP, excluding Saturdays, for a total weekly count

of six flights (top of page). This service is well below the requirements of our current contract and new RFP. As you

know, SkyWest has proposed seven round-trips and our community has conveyed their emphatic support for the

SkyWest proposal. My sincere hope is that this dramatic decrease in service and reliability as demonstrated by our

present carrier will necessitate an immediate resolution, i.e. the award of our new contract to SkyWest poste-haste. I

ask that you please pursue this as aggressively as possible, and as soon as possible. Thank you very much in advance and

I look forward to hearing from you again soon.

Importance:

Cordially,

Matthew Leitner

Manager, Jamestown Regional Airport

Phone (701)252-6466

Fax (701)252-2919

www.flvjamestown.net

1
,~" .

:7Tt2BE1. -- -X6- --:--M$~~---1455- -1q20- . .. . ,

......... -.-- .--..)t6S51755MSP_/

1 ,:, ~---_. .

All stations please verify that your new changes are displaying properly in

AIR Monday, January 20th and report any discrepancies asap. The schedule

change process is a manual one, and it's much easier for our customers if we

correct aJD'issues now raft1erthan after the cl)anges go into effect.

. . ., &4r£ <?dc'(,J.!'17//?vL~;d;r£

;7172:.) E

' __ -< 1
#### Claude T. Ansley, doing business as Ansley Wood Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, a Corporation, Defendant in Error.

*864Writ of error to a judgment of the Circuit Court for Hernando County.

Writ of error dismissed on prseecipe of counsel for Plaintiff in Error.

Darant & Davant, for Plaintiff in Error.
```

[House Document 113-152]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

113th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Document 113-152

 
             AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR LOCALITY PAY INCREASES

                               __________

                             COMMUNICATION

                                  from

                   THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              transmitting

  AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR LOCALITY PAY INCREASES PAYABLE TO CIVILIAN 
  FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE GENERAL SCHEDULE (GS) AND CERTAIN 
      OTHER PAY SYSTEMS FOR 2015, PURSUANT TO 5 U.S.C. 5305(a)(3)

    September 8, 2014.--Referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
              Government Reform and ordered to be printed
                                           The White House,
                                       Washington, August 29, 2014.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: I am transmitting an alternative plan for 
pay increases for civilian Federal employees covered by the 
General Schedule (GS) and certain other pay systems in January 
2015.
    Title 5, United States Code, authorizes me to implement 
alternative pay plans for pay increases for civilian Federal 
employees covered by the General Schedule and certain other pay 
systems if, because of ``national emergency or serious economic 
conditions affecting the general welfare,'' I view the 
adjustments that would otherwise take effect as inappropriate.
    Civilian Federal employees have already made significant 
sacrifices as a result of a three-year pay freeze that ended in 
January 2014 with the implementation of a 1.0 percent pay 
increase--an amount lower than the private sector pay increases 
and statutory formula for adjustments to the base General 
Schedule. However, as the country's economic recovery 
continues, we must maintain efforts to keep our Nation on a 
sustainable fiscal course. This is an effort that continues to 
require tough choices and each of us to do our fair share.
    Accordingly, I have determined that it is appropriate to 
exercise my statutory alternative plan authority under 5 U.S.C. 
5303(b) and 5304a to set alternative January 2015 across-the-
board and locality pay adjustments. Specifically, I have 
determined that for 2015, across-the-board pay increases will 
be 1.0 percent, and the current locality pay percentages shown 
in Schedule 9 of Executive Order 13655 of December 23, 2013, 
will remain at their 2014 levels. This decision will not 
materially affect our ability to attract and retain a well-
qualified Federal workforce.
    The adjustments described above shall take effect on the 
first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 
2015.
            Sincerely,
                                                      Barack Obama.

                                  

```
PUBLIC LAW 113–154—AUG. 8, 2014 128 STAT. 1827 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4028: 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 113–214 (Comm. on Foreign Relations). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

May 28, considered and passed House. 

July 29, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–154 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To amend the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to include the desecration 

of cemeteries among the many forms of violations of the right to religious freedom. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) Cemeteries are sacred sites that are of great spiritual, 

cultural, and historical significance to many religious and ethnic 

groups. 

(2) Congress is committed to protecting and preserving 

the heritage and sacred sites of national, religious, and ethnic 

groups, which includes cemeteries in the United States and 

abroad. 

(3) Cemeteries around the world have and continue to 

be defaced or destroyed as a direct result of their affiliation 

with a particular religious or spiritual group. 

(4) Such attacks constitute an assault on the fundamental 

right to freedom of religion, and are especially egregious when 

sponsored or tolerated by the local or national governments 

in the countries in which such offenses occur. 

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT 

OF 1998. 

Section 2(a)(4) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 

1998 (22 U.S.C. 6401(a)(4)) is amended in the fourth sentence 

by inserting ‘‘desecration of cemeteries,’’ after ‘‘confiscations of property,’’. 

Approved August 8, 2014. 

22 USC 6401 

note. 

Aug. 8, 2014 

[H.R. 4028] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
# EUR-Lex - 31999Y0701(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999Y0701(01)

**Communication concerning the taking up of activities of Europol **

*
Official Journal L 185 , 01/07/1999 P. 0001 - 0001 *

Communication concerning the taking up of activities of Europol

(1999/C 185/01)

Pursuant to Article 45(4) of the Europol Convention which entered into force on 1 October 1998, Europol shall not take up its activities under the Convention until the last of the acts provided for in Article 5(7) (rights and obligations of liaison officers), Article 10(1) (implementing rules for data files), Article 24(7) (rules of procedure of the joint supervisory body), Article 30(3) (staff regulations), Article 31(1) (rules on confidentiality), Article 35(9) (financial regulation), Article 37 (headquarters agreement), Article 41(1) (protocol on privileges and immunities) and Article 41(2) (agreements on privileges and immunities for liaison officers) enters into force.

With the entry into force on 1 July 1999 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities and the agreements on privileges and immunities for liaison officers, all the acts mentioned in Article 45(4) will have entered into force.

Europol will thus take up its activities as from 1 July 1999.