alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### NUMBER 13

- 20

- 00 365

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

SALLY MARI BURNS,

CHARLES EDWARD BURNS, AND

JENNIFER LEE BURNS BIELA

, A ppellants

,

v.

CYNTHIA ANN BURNS MILIAN,

TED M. BURNS, III, AND

MARY MARGARET BURNS KLEMENT

, A ppellees

.

On a ppeal from the 1 0 5 th District Court

of Kenedy County, Texas.



## ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Silva

Order Per Curiam

The case is before the Court on appellees ’ unopposed fourth motion for extension

of time to file appell ees’ brief

. The motion indicates the purpose of the extension is to2 allow the parties to continue settlement negotiations and to finalize settlement

documents

.

T he motion to extend time to file a brief is CARRIED and this appeal is ordered

ABATED until March 8, 2021

. The Court directs appellants and appell ees to file, on or

before March 8 , 2021 , either (1) a joint motion to reinstate the appeal

, or (2) a joint motion

to dismiss the appeal pursuant to a settlement.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed on this

the 2nd day of February , 2021

.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 15 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 15

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on March 29, 
2007, for a ceremony to award a Congressional Gold Medal collectively 
to the Tuskegee Airmen in accordance with Public Law 109-213. Physical 
preparations for the ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with 
such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.

            Passed the Senate March 6, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 15

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Authorizing the Rotunda of the Capitol to be used on March 29, 2007, 
 for a ceremony to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the Tuskegee 
                                Airmen.
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

ROBERT KENON , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1955

[ May 10, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; James W. McCann

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 56

- 2007

- CF

- 001604

- A

.
Robert Lee Kenon, Carrabelle, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez

- Orosa, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, fo r appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

W ARNER , G ROSS and C ONNER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 1919.22 Requirements governing braking devices and power sources.

All types of winches and cranes shall be provided with means to stop and hold the proof load in any position, and the efficiency of such means shall be demonstrated. Electric winches, electrohydraulic winches fitted with electromagnetic or hydraulic brakes at the winch, or electric cranes shall be equipped so that a failure of the electric power shall stop the motion and set the brakes without any action on the part of the operator. Current for operation of electric winches and cranes during the tests shall be taken from the vessel's circuits. Shore current may be used if it passes through the vessel's main switchboard.
#### SEVIGNY v COTE

Case No. 87-113 AP (County Court Case No. 85-8143SP23)

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

October 26, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Steven M. Roth for appellant.

Charles Mark Demos for appellee.

Before SALMON, SHAPIRO, GREENBAUM, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant took this appeal from an order entered by the lower Court which order vacated a default and final judgment entered in her favor. For the reasons set forth herein, we reverse.

Appellee instituted this action in County Court. Appellant answered and counterclaimed. When the case came on for trial, Appellee failed to appear. The trial court dismissed the complaint and after receiving *157testimony, entered Final Judgment in favor of Appellant on her counterclaim.

Some seven months later, Appellee filed a verified motion to set aside default. The matter was heard by the court and the motion granted. This appeal ensued from that Order.

Though Appellant raises several points, we need only consider one. The verified motion to set aside default contains the following acknowledgement: “Before me, personally appeared Donat Cote, and upon oath deposes and says that he read the foregoing motion to set aside default and finds it is true to the basis of his knowledge and belief[.]” This acknowledgement is insufficient on its face.

In *Hall v. Byington,*421 So.2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), the Court reversed the action of the trial Judge who “mistakenly” believed the motion to vacate to be sworn. The oath indicated that the allegations were “[T]rue and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief’. Such a statement is insufficient because it is qualified and not positive. *Hahn v. Frederick,*66 So.2d 823 (Fla. 1953); *P & T Electric Co. v. Spadea,*227 So.2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); *United Bonding Insurance Co. v. Dura-Stress, Inc.,*243 So.2d 244 (Fla.2d DCA 1971).

Because of the foregoing impropriety, we find the action of the lower Court in vacating the final judgment and default to be in error. Accordingly, this matter is reversed, the final judgment for Appellant is reinstated and the dismissal of the original claim is affirmed.

Reversed and remanded.
#### STATE ex BROWN v COOPER

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No 1749.

Decided March 17, 1930

Bruce W. Bierce, City Solicitor, Cuyahoga Falls, for State ex.

D. D. Isham, Prosecuting Attorney, Akron, and W. A. Spencer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Akron, for Cooper.

*279PARDEE, J.

The petition does not allege that the relator is a citizen of said city, but it being admitted that he is a duly elected and qualified official of said city, it will be presumed that he is a citizen and therefore qualified to bring a suit in mandamus to compel the defendant to dischárge the duties cast upon him by law.

> Brissel, et al., v. State, ex rel. McCammon, 87 OS. 154.

Sec. 3892 GC provides that “the county treasurer shall collect it (certified 'special assessments) in the same manner and at the same time as other taxes are collected.” Prior to 1927 (112 OL. 61), the foregoing section did not contain the words “at the same time,” and it is the contention of the relator that by the insertion of these words the general assembly intended to prohibit a county treasurer from receiving general taxes levied upon a piece of real estate in a city unless the special assessments levied, upon said real estate were also paid.

But with this contention we do not agree. We think the plain import of these words is that special assessments are to be collected in the same manner and within the same periods as general taxes— that is, twice each year and within the same limitations as to time at such semiannual periods — and not at the same moment general taxes are paid, or, in other words, the taxpayer may or may not pay his special assessments at the same moment he pays his general taxes, and it is the duty of the county treasurer to receive the general taxes without receiving the special assessments if the taxpayer elects so to pay.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

Our attention has been directed to the case of State, ex rel. Jones, etc., v. Brenner, Treas., etc., 31 App. 465, decided by the Court of Appeals of the Seventh District, and as we have reached a different conclusion than that reached by said Court of Appeals, this cause will be certified to the Supreme Court for final determination.

Funk, PJ., and Washburn, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 4.1(b)



AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT



|The Rights Agreement dated November 8, 2001, between LaBarge, Inc. and UMB Bank, NA is hereby amended as follows:
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1.                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                                 
|2.                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                                 
|3.                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                                 
|4.                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                                 
|IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties listed below have caused this Amendment to be duly executed on this date.        
|                                                                                                                 
|Date:  12-5-2001                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                                 
|LaBarge, Inc.                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                                 
|BY:  /s/Donald H. Nonnenkamp                                                                                     
|Donald H. Nonnenkamp                                                                                             
|Vice President                                                                                                   
|
§ 2570.8 Summary decision. For prohibited transaction penalty proceedings, this section shall apply in lieu of § 18.41 of this title. ( a ) *No genuine issue of material fact.* ( 1 ) Where no genuine issue of a material fact is found to have been raised, the administrative law judge may issue a decision which, in the absence of an appeal pursuant to §§ 2570.10-2570.12 of this part, shall become a final order.
( 2 ) A decision made under this paragraph shall include a statement of: ( i ) Findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the reasons therefor, on all issues presented; and
( ii ) Any terms and conditions of the rule or order.
( 3 ) A copy of any decision under this paragraph shall be served on each party.
( b ) *Hearings on issue of fact.* Where a genuine question of material fact is raised, the administrative law judge shall, and in any other case may, set the case for an evidentiary hearing.
§ 1979.105 Issuance of findings and preliminary orders. ( a ) After considering all the relevant information collected during the investigation, the Assistant Secretary will issue, within 60 days of filing of the complaint, written findings as to whether or not there is reasonable cause to believe that the named person has discriminated against the complainant in violation of the Act. ( 1 ) If the Assistant Secretary concludes that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, he or she will accompany the findings with a preliminary order providing relief to the complainant. The preliminary order will include, where appropriate, a requirement that the named person abate the violation; reinstatement of the complainant to his or her former position, together with the compensation (including back pay), terms, conditions and privileges of the complainant's employment; and payment of compensatory damages. Where the named person establishes that the complainant is a security risk (whether or not the information is obtained after the complainant's discharge), a preliminary order of reinstatement would not be appropriate. At the complainant's request the order shall also assess against the named person the complainant's costs and expenses (including attorney's and expert witness fees) reasonably incurred in connection with the filing of the complaint.
( 2 ) If the Assistant Secretary concludes that a violation has not occurred, the Assistant Secretary will notify the parties of that finding.
( b ) The findings and the preliminary order will be sent by means that allow OSHA to confirm delivery to all parties of record. The letter accompanying the findings and order will inform the parties of their right to file objections and to request a hearing, and of the right of the named person to request attorney's fees from the administrative law judge, regardless of whether the named person has filed objections, if the named person alleges that the complaint was frivolous or brought in bad faith. The letter also will give the address of the Chief Administrative Law Judge or appropriate information regarding filing objections electronically with the Office of Administrative Law Judges. At the same time, the Assistant Secretary will file with the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, a copy of the original complaint and a copy of the findings and order.
( c ) The findings and the preliminary order shall be effective 30 days after receipt by the named person pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, unless an objection and a request for a hearing has been filed as provided at § 1979.106. However, the portion of any preliminary order requiring reinstatement shall be effective immediately upon receipt of the findings and preliminary order.
[68 FR 14107, Mar. 21, 2003, as amended at 86 FR 1788, Jan. 11, 2021]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         7,674
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               6,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         38,100
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           38,100
<LOANS>                                        71,549
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (994)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 133,717
<DEPOSITS>                                     98,742
<SHORT-TERM>                                   21,935
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            50
<LONG-TERM>                                    6,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,993
<COMMON>                                       6,527
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,130)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 133,717
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                1,768
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              676
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               25
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               2,469
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             628
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,184
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          1,285
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  45
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                1,508
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     (13)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (49)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.08)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 0.044
<LOANS-NON>                                    636
<LOANS-PAST>                                   61
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               378
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                3,120
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               871
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  5
<RECOVERIES>                                   83
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              994
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           994
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        367







</TABLE>
#### AMERICAN LIABILITY CO v FENTON

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Erie Co

No 325.

Decided April 19, 1930

King, Ramsey & Flynn, Sandusky, for Liability C.o

John F. McCrystal, Sandusky, for Fenton.

*311Williams, Lloyd and Richards, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31604-31605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12565]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

National Institute of Justice

[OJP (NIJ)-1273]


Announcement of the Availability of the National Institute of 
Justice Solicitation for a National Evaluation of Grants To Combat 
Violent Crimes Against Women on Campus

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 
Justice.

ACTION: Notice of solicitation.

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

SUMMARY: Announcement of the Availability of the National Institute of 
Justice ``National Evaluation of Grants to Combat Violent Crimes 
Against Women on Campus.''

DATES: Proposals must be received by close of business July 5, 2000.

ADDRESSES: National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20531.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For a copy of the solicitation, please 
call NCJRS 1-800-851-3420. For general information about application 
procedures for solicitations, please call the U.S. Department of 
Justice Response Center 1-800-421-6770.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 31605]]

Authority

    This action is authorized under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968, Sections 201-03, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 3721-23 
(1994).

Background

    This solicitation is based on the Congressional reporting 
requirements of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 for an 
evaluation of the effectiveness of the Grants to Combat Violent Crimes 
Against Women on Campuses Program (VAW Campus Program). The National 
Institute of Justice (NIJ), in collaboration with the Office of Justice 
Programs' Violence Against Women Office (VAWO), is soliciting proposals 
for this national evaluation. The evaluation should examine impact 
issues regarding those institutions of higher education that are VAW 
Campus Program grantees; implementing comprehensive, coordinated 
responses to violence against women, including sexual assault, domestic 
violence, and stalking. One grant of up to $850,000 will be awarded. 
The duration of the evaluation is up to 36 months, with summary reports 
required for each component of the evaluation--baseline data, process, 
and impact.
    Interested organizations should call the National Criminal Justice 
Reference Service (NCJRS) at 1-800-851-3420 to obtain a copy of 
``National Evaluation of Grants to Combat Violent Crimes Against Women 
on Campus'' (refer to document no. SL000422). For World Wide Web 
access, connect to either NIJ at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/funding.htm, or the NCJRS Justice Information Center at http://www.ncjrs.org/fedgrant.htm#nij.

Julie E. Samuels,
Acting Director, National Institute of Justice.
[FR Doc. 00-12565 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-U
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Private forests, publicbenefits [electronic resource] : increased housing density and other pressureson private forest contributions**
 
Parts: One | Two | Three
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.88:PNW-GTR-795
Item Number:0083-B-06 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000722543
 
April 3, 2018
[No. 49944-1-I.

Division One.

November 18, 2002.]

#### *In the Matter of the Dependency of*T.J.B. The Department of Social and Health Services, *Respondent,*v. Timothy Brown, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-7-05212-6, John P. Erlick, J., entered January 23, 2002. Discretionary review *denied*by unpublished per curiam opinion. Now published at 115 Wn. App. 182.
§ 2530.201-2 Plans covered by part 2530. This part (2530) shall apply to any employee benefit plan described in section 4(a) of the Act (and not exempted under section 4(b)) other than— ( a ) An employee welfare benefit plan as defined in section 3(1) of the Act and § 2510.3-1;
( b ) A plan which is unfunded and is maintained by an employer primarily for the purpose of providing deferred compensation for a select group of management or highly compensated employees;
( c ) A plan established and maintained by a society, order, or association described in section 501(c)(8) or (9) of the Code, if no part of the contributions to or under such plan are made by employers of participants in such plan;
( d ) A trust described in section 501(c)(18) of the Code;
( e ) A plan which is established and maintained by a labor organization described in section 501(c)(5) of the Code and which does not at any time after the date of enactment of the Act provide for employer contributions;
( f ) Any agreement providing payments to a retired partner or a deceased partner's successor in interest, as described in section 736 of the Code;
( g ) An individual retirement account or annuity described in section 408 of the Code, or a retirement bond described in section 409 of the Code;
( h ) An excess benefit plan as described in section 3(36) of the Act.