alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Surface water supply of the New-Kanawha River basin, West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina

By: N.C. GroverAlbert Howard HortonGuy Clarke Stevens

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp536

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Employment of Women in the Early Postwar Period: With Background of Prewar and War Data

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					 and 	Pidgeon, Mary Elizabeth. 						*Employment of Women in the Early Postwar Period: With Background of Prewar and War Data : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 211*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1946,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5482,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### LIEBERMAN v MATH, et al.

Case No. 86-4744 SP-P

County Court, Broward County

April 3, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Louis Lieberman, pro se.

M. Ross Shulmister for defendants.

OPINION OF THE COURT

LINDA R. PRATT, County Judge.

This cause came before the Court for non-jury trial on March 23, 1987. Plaintiff was present pro se, and Defendants were represented by counsel.

From the evidence the Court finds that J.B. ASSOCIATED TRAVEL is the trade name of THE TRAVEL BUREAU, INC. NORTON MATH is an officer of THE TRAVEL BUREAU, INC.

*28There was no evidence to support that NORTON MATH was involved in any way in an individual capacity, and accordingly there was no basis for any claim against NORTON MATH.

J. B. ASSOCIATED TRAVEL is merely a fictitious name of THE TRAVEL BUREAU, INC.

Plaintiff booked a tour through THE TRAVEL BUREAU, INC. Included in the booking was trip cancellation insurance. The insurance provided for return of deposit money under certain conditions if the trip were cancelled after a deadline.

THE TRAVEL BUREAU, INC. in fact obtained the insurance for which Plaintiff paid, and provided some assistance in Plaintiff filing for his claim. The insurance company allegedly refused to make payment on the policy, contending that cancellation was based on a “preexisting condition”, that is, pre-existing illness of Plaintiffs sister. The Court does not determine whether or not there is a valid claim against the insurance company, because that is not at issue.

The Court finds from the evidence that THE TRAVEL BUREAU, INC. explained (or attempted to explain) the nature of the trip insurance, and did nothing wrong. Plaintiff received the insurance he contracted for, and he had the reservations he contracted for. His decision to cancel the trip (after the cancellation deadline) gave him no right to reclaim the deposit—only to make a claim on the insurance.

The purpose of a deposit is to hold or secure some benefit or contract. The person making the deposit is basically telling the other party that the depositor will forfeit the deposit if he (the depositor) chooses not to claim the benefit.

While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs loss of his deposit, under the circumstances of this case the law does not provide for recourse against the travel agency.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ADJUDGED

That Plaintiff shall take nothing by way of this action, and the parties shall go henceforth without day, each party to bear its own costs.

ORDERED at Pompano Beach, Broward County, Florida on April 3, 1987.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [NAFTA-003790]

Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act Public Law 103-1 concerning transitional adjustment assistance, hereinafter called NAFTA-TAA and in accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2331), an investigation was initiated on March 8, 2000, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at 3-I, Inc., Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. Workers produced t-shirts.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn due to lack of significant worker separations. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC this 10th day of May, 2000.

Grant D. Beale,

Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-12510  Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 94 (Monday, May 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12066]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Notice of closed meeting

AGENCY: Defense Intelligence Agency, Joint Military Intelligence 
College.

ACTION: Notice of Closed Meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of subsection (d) of section 10 of 
Public Law 92-463, as amended by section 5 of Public Law 94-409, notice 
is hereby given that a closed meeting of the DIA Joint Military 
Intelligence College Board of Visitors has been scheduled as follows:

DATES: Monday, 12 June 2000, 0800 to 1700; and Tuesday, 13 June 2000, 
0800 to 1200.

ADDRESSES: Joint Military Intelligence College, Washington, DC 20340-
5100

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. A. Denis Clift, President, DIA 
Joint Military Intelligence College, Washington, DC 20340-5100 (202/
231-3344).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The entire meeting is devoted to the 
discussion of classified information as defined in section 552b(c)(1), 
title 5 of U.S. Code and therefore will be closed. The Board will 
discuss several current critical intelligence issues and advise the 
Director, DIA, as to the successful accomplishment of the mission 
assigned to the Joint Military Intelligence College.

    Dated: May 8, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.
[FR Doc. 00-12066 Filed 5-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George X. RAMSEUR, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16545.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

June 15, 1967.

Robert R. Lowery, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.

G. Wilson Horde, Asst. U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., J. H. Reddy, U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., on brief, for appellee.

Before O’SULLIVAN, EDWARDS and CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was indicted and convicted by a jury for possession of1 and aiding and abetting in the transfer of2 marijuana.

Two appellate issues are presented. In the first, defendant, a Negro, claims deprivation of constitutional rights through systematic exclusion of Negroes and women from the jury. There is, however, no evidence at all in this record to support either the claim of systematic exclusion or any assertion of prejudice flowing therefrom. *903The second question is an assertion of an illegal search and seizure as a result of which the police obtained a jacket which appellant was wearing at the time when he (according to the overwhelming testimony of a variety of government witnesses) deposited marijuana in a locker in a bus station.

’ It appears that the jacket was procured by the police after defendant’s arrest through the intervention of hospital staff from the bedroom where defendant’s mother was being treated. Appellant relies on United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 72 S.Ct. 93, 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951), and Stoner v. State of California, 376 U.S. 483, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed. 2d 856 (1964), which hold that a defendant does not need to have either title to or leasehold rights in residential premises in order to have standing to raise a constitutional issue pertaining to a warrantless search and seizure.

There are factual distinctions between the instant search and those dealt with in *Jeffers*and *Stoner.*We do not, however, feel required to pass on this question. Even if this search was illegal, this case would simply be a classic instance of harmless error.

Four of the witnesses identified Ramseur and testified to defendant’s trip through the bus station to the locker. Several testified that he was wearing a green jacket with the legend “Big Ramseur” in big white letters. After that testimony plus the testimony of police who subsequently followed him in hot pursuit for a considerable period of time, and their positive identification of him, the admission of the jacket itself could not have made any substantial difference in the outcome of this trial.

Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

> *“Harmless Error.*Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.”

 The Supreme Court has recently held that the harmless error rule may be applied in relation to certain errors based on constitutional grounds. We find “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the harmless error rule should be applied here. Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).

Affirmed,

1

. 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a) (1) (1964).

2

. 26 U.S.O. § 4742(a) (1964).
#### EMMA O. McCORMICK v WM. F. McCORMICK

Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Franklin Co

No 1915.

Decided July 17, 1930

Cowan, Adams & Jackson, Columbus, for Appellant. t

Mooney, Bibbee & Edmonds, Columbus, for Appellee, Wm. F. McCormick.

*571BY THE COURT

The prayer of the amended petition is quite broad and asks for such further relief as may be equitable and proper in the premises.

The lower court seemed to treat this case merely as one for the assignment of dower.

We think the pleadings warrant a more liberal view of this case and that it should be disposed of as one in which the principal relief urged was the setting aside of the deed in question, insofar as the plaintiff’s dower rights are concerned.

We have read with care the record in this case, which is brief, and have also considered the very exhaustive briefs which have been filed by counsel. We shall not attempt to discusd in detail the various authorities cited ,as we do not deem it necessary so to do. We can not escape the conclusion but that under the reasoning of the decision of our Supreme Court in the ease of Ward v. Ward, 63 Oh St 125, that the transaction of Richard McCormick in conveying this real estate to his son without consideration and without knowledge or consent of his intended wife constituted at least a constructive fraud as .against her and that she is entitled to have this deed set aside to the extent that it affects her dower rights by reason of such fraudulent conduct.

The syllabus in the case above quoted is as follows:

> “A conveyance by, a man who has entered into a contract of marriage, which subsequently takes place, of a portion of his land to his sons by a former marriage, without consideration other than love and affection, and without the knowledge or consent of his contemplated- wife, is a fraud on her marital rights, and she. at his death, is entitled to dower therein.”

As above stated, we can not escape the conclusion but that the .record clearly shows that the conduct of Richard McCormick in making this conveyance resulted in at least a constructive fraud as against the plaintiff and that she is entitled to have this, deed set aside insofar as her dower rights are concerned. We do not think the unreported decision in the case of Umbaugh vs. Fast, 68, Oh St 672, reverses or modifies the decision in the case of Ward vs. Ward, 63 Oh St 125.

This case comes into this court both on appeal and error.

We think the case is clearly appealable and will be disposed of upon the appeal case.

At the conclusion of the hearing of the lower court Emma McCormick asked leave to file a supplemental petition. The case being in this court on appeal we think such leave, if requested should now be granted. The supplemental petition may be filed and if any issue is raised thereon the case may be later called to the attention of the court.

Kunkle, PJ., Allread and Hornbeck,, JJ, concur.
Order entered October 24, 2017 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00851-CV 

FRANK A. RICHARDS, Appellant 

V. 

TOM'S AUTO TRANSPORT, INC., Appellee 

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-06468 

ORDER 

Before the Court is appellee’s October 11, 2017 motion to dismiss appeal for want of 

prosecution. Because the deadline for filing appellant’s brief has not been triggered, we DENY

the motion. 

We note that on August 22, 2017, we directed appellant to file, within ten days, written 

verification he had requested the reporter’s record and either paid the reporter’s fee or was 

entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to comply 

could result in the appeal being submitted without the reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P.

37.3(c). To date, however, appellant has not complied. Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal 

submitted without the reporter’s record. See id. 
As the clerk’s record has been filed, we ORDER appellant to file his brief no later than 

November 22, 2017. 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

 JUSTICE
#### § 18.91 Post-hearing brief.

The judge may grant a party time to file a post-hearing brief with proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the specific relief sought. The brief must refer to all portions of the record and authorities relied upon in support of each assertion.
#### STATE ex STAPLES v SHEETS etc

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Scioto Co

Decided April 9, 1930

Blair & B,all, Portsmouth, for State ex.

W. L. Dickey, Portsmouth, for Sheets.

BY THE COURT.

This is a proceeding in error from the the Court of Common Pleas of this county and is an action in mandamus whereby the plaintiff in error sought an order of that court against the defendant in»error as chief of police of the City of Portsmouth requiring of him ,an enforcement of the provisions of 13049 GC. which makes it unlawful to exhibit a moving picture show on Sunday. In the Common Pleas Court a general demurrer to the amended petition was sustained, and after an examination of that pleading we are convinced that there wasi no error in such disposition of the case by that court.

The amended petition demands that the Court of Common Pleas shall order the respondent “to take such course and do such acts by and thru the police department of said city” as will prevent the party or parties complained of from operating on Sunday. Again, “to arrest and prosecute ,any and all persons so violating the provisions of 13049 GC. And again, “take such course of action as will effectually prevent ** and to take such steps and do such acts authorized by the laws of Ohio as will prevent any violation of the provisions of 13049 GC by exhibitions of theatrical performances, to wit, motion picture shows”. The petition specifies the places where the demands quoted shall be executed.

It is apparent, we think, that this amended petition undertakes to impose upon the Court of Common Pleas the duty of controlling the general course of conduct of the chief of police in respect to the violation of the section mentioned. It is well settled by the authorities that a duty en-forcible by mandamus must be specific and definite and that it may not be one of a general character which leaves to the respondent any discretion in its performance. State ex rel v. Murphy, 3 C. C. 332, 18 R. C. L., Section 33, page 119, 64 A. L. R. 975. If an order by mandamus of the character demanded in this case may be issued similar orders may be demanded and required for the enforcement of any and all criminal statutes in this state. The effect of such authority, if allowed, would impose on the Court of Common Pleas such a control of the official conduct of police and other officers of that character as would require all of its time and service.

We find no precedent which supports the granting of such an order as is demanded in this proceeding, and the judgment of thei Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Middleton, PJ., Mauck and Blosser, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12583]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Final Environmental Assessment for BRAC 95 Disposal and Reuse of 
Camp Kilmer, New Jersey

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with Public Law 101-510 (as amended), the 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Commission recommended the closure of Camp 
Kilmer, New Jersey.
    The Final Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the environmental 
impacts of the disposal and subsequent reuse of the 49 acres. 
Alternatives examined in the EA include no action, unencumbered 
disposal of the property, encumbered disposal of the property. 
Encumbered disposal refers to transfer or conveyance of property having 
restrictions on subsequent use as a result of any Army-imposed or legal 
restraint. The unencumbered disposal alternative refers to the transfer 
of property without encumbrances such as environmental restrictions and 
easements. Under the no action alternative, the Army would not dispose 
of property but would maintain it in caretaker status for an indefinite 
period.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Final EA may be obtained by writing to Mr. 
Carl Burgamy, Jr., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Engineer 
District, Mobile (CESAM-PD), 109 St. Joseph Street, Mobile, AL 36602.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Carl Burgamy, Jr. at (334) 690-
2036 or telefax at (334) 690-2727.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: While closure of Camp Kilmer is the Army's 
primary action, the EA also analyzes the potential environmental 
effects of reuse as a secondary action by means of evaluating 
intensity-based reuse scenarios. The Army's preferred alternative for 
disposal of Camp Kilmer's excess property is encumbered disposal, with 
encumbrances pertaining to easements, use restrictions, restrictions 
pertaining to asbestos-containing material, future remedial activities 
after transfer, utility dependencies.
    A Notice of Intent (NOI) declaring the Army's intent to prepare an 
EA for the closure of Camp Kilmer was published in the Federal Register 
on September 22, 1995 (60 FR 49264).
    The Final EA is available for review at the Main Public Library, 
340 Plainfield Ave., Edison, NJ 08817. Prior to initiating action the 
Army will consider comments received on this EA.

    Dated: May 15, 2000.
Raymond J. Fatz,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, (Environment, Safety and 
Occupational Health); OASA (I&E).
[FR Doc. 00-12583 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
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 Annual Report of LaBarge, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended June 27, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Craig E. LaBarge, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. |  | 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.





|                          |                     |                                                       
|------------------------- | ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|                          |                     |                                                       
|Dated:  SEPTEMBER 2, 2004 | /S/CRAIG E. LABARGE
|                          |                     | Craig E. LaBarge
Chief Executive Officer and President