alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[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:****Births in the United States.**
 
2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.6234:B 53/
Item Number:0500-E-17 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001090213
 
September 27, 2018
#### *Eliphalet Miller *against*John Colwell.

ON CERTIORARI.

Statute of ^ltatlons (a)

(a)

*Franklin vs. Camp, Coxe 196. Burnet vs. Bryan, 1 Hal. 377. Smith vs. Ruecastle, 2 Hal. 357. Dancer vs. Patterson, 5 Hal. 255. Belles vs. Belles, 7 Hal. 339. Gulick ads. Turnpike Co., 2 Gr. 545. Hibler vs. Johnston, 3 Har. 266. Cook vs. Smith, 1 Vr. 394. Thorpe vs. Corwin, Spen.*311.

Kirkpatrick C. J.

The foundation of this action, was an account for fire-wood, hay, &c., the product of the plaintiff’s farm, and not an account between merchants. Most of the items of it were of more than six years star ding, and no assumption having been proved within that time, the defendant set up, in his defence, the statute of *666limitations, and requested the justice to charge the jury that these items were barred by the said statute. The justice, however, it seems, thought the law to be different, and informed the jury that if any one item of the account was within six years, .it took the whole out of the statute. In this opinion he erred, and

Therefore let the judgment be reversed.
Greetings, 

EPA has reviewed your extension request for the steam electric effluent guidelines 

questionnaire for the Richmond Power and Light, Whitewater Valley Station. The deadline for

your plant to submit Version 2 of the completed questionnaire is extended to October 15, 

2010 . If you need assistance during the completion of the steam electric questionnaire, please

contact the steam electric helpline via e-mail at steamhelp@erg.com or by phone at 1-877-353-

7560. 

Sincerely, 

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C5691CCD... 8/26/2011
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 68

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL BY 

4 THE JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON 

5 INAUGURAL CEREMONIES. 

6 The rotunda of the United States Capitol is author7 ized to be used on January 20, 2009, by the Joint Con8 gressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in connec9 tion with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for 

10 the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice Presi11 dent-elect of the United States. 

Passed the Senate February 8 (legislative day, February 6), 2008. 

Attest:

Secretary. 
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 68

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol 

gural Ceremonies.by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inau-
#### § 4006.1 Purpose and scope.

This part, which applies to all plans covered by title IV of ERISA, provides rules for computing the premiums imposed by sections 4006 and 4007 of ERISA. (See part 4007 of this chapter for rules for the payment of premiums, including due dates and late payment charges.)
#### Cyrill POKLADNIK and wife, Justine Pokladnik, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 23501.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June *2,*1967.

W. M. Taylor, Jr., H. P. Kucera, Strasburger, Price, Kelton, Miller & Martin, Dallas, Tex., for appellants.

Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert P. Marquis, Edmund B. Clark, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Melvin M. Diggs, U. S. Atty., Claude D. Brown, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for appellee.

Before BELL, GODBOLD and DYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The United States condemned 296 acres of a 383 acre tract owned by appellants to be used as a reservoir and for recreational purposes.

On this appeal the Pokladnik’s principal contention is that the increase in value of a portion of the remainder of their tract was not a special and direct benefit to the tract and should not have been deducted from their compensation or, in the alternative, if the increase m value was a special and direct benefit it was too speculative to legitimately be taken into account.

This contention has been effectively foreclosed by United States v. 2,477.79 Acres of Land, etc., in Bell County, 5 Cir., 1958, 259 F.2d 23, where this Court considered an almost identical contention.

We have considered the other contentions of appellants and find them to be without merit.

The judgment is

Affirmed.
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: 8/26/ 14 TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket I d: OAR

–2013 - 0602 FROM: Howard J. Hoffman , EPA - OGC SUBJECT: 8 / 26 /14 M eeting Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

with EDF **SUMMARY** On August 26, 2014 I met with Megan Ceronsk y of the Environmental Defense Fund to discuss legal issues concerning the Clean Power Plan proposal for Existing Power Plants .
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.                  

###### Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

# TIME AND DATE: 

10 a.m., Wednesday, May 24, 2000. 

# PLACE: 

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551. 

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 

1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees. 

2. Any matters carried forward from a previously announced meeting. 

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting. 

Dated: May 17, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-12744 Filed 5-17-00; 10:54 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
§ 2200.63 Stay of proceedings. ( a ) *Motion for stay.* Stays are not favored. A party seeking a stay of a case assigned to a Judge shall file a motion for stay conforming to § 2200.40 with the Judge and send a copy to the Chief Administrative Law Judge. A motion for a stay shall state the position of the other parties, either by a joint motion or by the representation of the moving party. The motion shall set forth the reasons a stay is sought and the length of the stay requested.
( b ) *Ruling on motion to stay.* The Judge, with the concurrence of the Chief Administrative Law Judge, may grant any motion for stay for the period requested or for such period as is deemed appropriate.
( c ) *Periodic reports required.* The parties in a stayed proceeding shall be required to submit periodic reports on such terms and conditions as the Judge may direct. The length of time between the reports shall be no longer than 90 days unless the Judge otherwise orders.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Gomez, Appellant.

[699 NYS2d 8]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered November 13, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to *12*years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in receiving certain evidence under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule, since the court properly found that the People “made a sufficient showing of the accuracy of the recording and its reliability” *(People v Taylor,*80 NY2d 1, 9). The relevant witness testified that, based on his review of the voucher bearing his signature, the record was accurate and complete and was submitted in accordance with his practice of filling out such forms whenever he recovered drugs. This satisfied the requirement that “the witness can presently testify that the record correctly represented his knowledge and recollection when made” *(supra,*at 8).

The record fails to support defendant’s claim that the court refused to admit testimony given at a prior trial of this case. On the contrary, the record reveals that defendant merely alluded to the possibility of making such an application and that the court made no ruling on the subject. In any event, defendant failed to establish the admissibility of the prior testimony under CPL 670.10.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.
#### § 2201.1 Purpose and scope.

This part prescribes procedures to obtain information and records of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC or Commission) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. It applies only to records or information of the Commission or in the Commission's custody. This part does not affect discovery in adversary proceedings before the Commission. Discovery is governed by the Commission's Rules of Procedure in 29 CFR part 2200, subpart D.
§ 4007.7 Late payment interest charges. ( a ) If any premium payment due under this part is not paid by the due date prescribed for such payment by this part, an interest charge will accrue on the unpaid amount at the rate imposed under section 6601(a) of the Code for the period from the date payment is due to the date payment is made. Late payment interest charges are compounded daily.
( b ) With respect to any PBGC bill for a premium underpayment and/or interest thereon, interest will accrue only until the date of the bill if the premium underpayment and interest billed are paid within 30 days after the date of the bill.
[61 FR 34020, July 1, 1996, as amended at 72 FR 71229, Dec. 17, 2007; 73 FR 15076, Mar. 21, 2008]
### Surface water supply of Hudson, Passaic, Raritan, and Delaware River drainages, 1906

By: Harold Kilbrith BarrowsNathan Clifford Grover

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp202

#### Links

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

#### Abstract

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.
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

          - [Order No. 1092] 

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a—81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: 

*Whereas,*                     the Port of Olympia, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 216 (Olympia, Washington), submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand FTZ 216-Site 3 to include an additional area at the Commerce Place industrial/business park in Lacey, Washington, adjacent to the Port of Olympia Customs port of entry (FTZ Docket 27-99; filed 5/26/99);                 

*Whereas,*                     notice inviting public comment was given in the                     **Federal Register**                     (64 FR 29993, 6/4/99) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,                 

*Whereas,*                     the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest;                 

*Now, Therefore,*                     the Board hereby orders:                 

The application to expand FTZ 216-Site 3 is approved, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and subject to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of May 2000. 

Troy H. Cribb, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. 

Dennis Puccinelli, 

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-12976 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
STYLE: AND D. v. RE: Case No. 15-0573 COA #: 12-15-00126-CV IN THE INTEREST OF T. W W., CHILDREN TC# C. w 

## "FlLiDlSCOURTOFAPPEALS 12thCoj^ofA|^a!BD^rict

FILECOPY DATE: 8/3/2015 JR W. W S. W 

### Today the Supreme Court of Texas receivedand fileda motion for extension of time to file petition for review pursuant to Rule 53.7(f) in the above numbered and styled case. MS. CATHY S. LUSK CLERK, TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS 

### 1517 WEST FRONT, SUITE 354 TYLER, TX 75702
#### YOUNGSTOWN MUNICIPAL RAILWAY CO v CARTER

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided June 11, 1930

Harrington, DeFord, Huxley & Smith, Youngstown, for Railway Co.

John Ruffalo, Youngstown, for Carter.

*675FARR, J.

Jospeh Phillips testifies practically to the same effect. Carter admits that he saw the approaching automobile, that it was coming rapidly, at about forty miles per hour; that Waller, the driver of the bus, was looking in the direction of the approaching automobile. He says that Waller stopped the bus abruptly almost up against the curb and that, was when he was injured, but Waller says the injuries were sustained when the automobile struck the bus. If it be true that Carter saw the automobile approaching, he saw the danger just as clearly and as plainly as Waller, the driver of the bus, did, and thefefore any warning by Waller to Carter would have been useless and unnecessary, because Carter was ,as fully advised in the premises as Waller.

The difficulty about the testimony in this case in behalf of the plaintiff is this, that he does not point out any particular in which the driver of the bus was negligent, except that he was running near the middle of the street, which would not be negligence unless there was a large amount of .traffic, which was not the case in the early morning. True, he says that the driver stopped abruptly but who shall say -that in case of an emergency of this kind that it was improper for Waller so to stop and avoid, if possible, a head-on collision of the two vehicles? Indeed, there isn’t anything disclosed by the Record that indicates that Waller did not act reasonably under all the circumstances that then surrounded him, and having done so he could not then be charged with negligence in the operation of the bus.

Extended discussion would not be profitable or needful in the instant case. It is sufficient to say that Carter charged Waller with negligence in that perhaps he was driving at a point near the middle of the road, and that when this emergency presented itself he stopped too quickly and threw him down. It seems clear from the Record that Waller exercised at least reasonably fair judgment, such as persons of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances, *676and that Carter’s injuries were caused by the reckless driving of the automobile and its crashing into the side of the bus. It is possible that Carter’s hand was cut from flying glass on the left side of the bus, and it would seem reasonable to conclude that the impact of the automobile and the bus would of necessity throw Carter from his place on the seat, whichever side it may have been; therefore, negligence is not shown upon the part of the driver of the bus.

For the reasons given the judgment is reversed; that is, because it is against the weight of the evidence.

Pollock and Roberts, JJ, concur.
#### § 401.11 Secret ballot.

*Secret ballot* means the expression by ballot, voting machine, or otherwise, but in no event by proxy, of a choice with respect to any election or vote taken upon any matter, which is cast in such a manner that the person expressing such choice cannot be identified with the choice expressed.
#### § 403.6 Personal responsibility of signatories of reports.

Each individual required to sign a report under section 201(b) of the Act and under this part shall be personally responsible for the filing of such report and for any statement contained therein which he knows to be false.
# AGENCY:

 Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

 Final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

                         This document allots Channel 255A at Albany, Texas, in response to a petition filed by Albany Broadcasting Company.                         *See*64 FR 52487, September 29, 1999. The coordinates for Channel 255A at Albany are 32-43-36 NL and 99-17-42 WL. With this action, this proceeding is terminated. A filing window for Channel 255A at Albany 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. 99-286, 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                     Start Printed Page 3152                    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 Texas, is amended by adding Albany, Channel 255A. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

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

[FR Doc. 00-1264 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLIING CODE 6712-01-P
#### ROSS v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Ross Co

Decided May 16, 1930

Garrett S. Claypool, Chillicothe, for Ross.

Howard Golsberry, Prosecuting Attorney, Chillicothe, for State.

BY THE COURT

It is contended by the plaintiff in error that the verdict of the jury is not supported by the evidence. It is urged that there was not a sufficient identification of the wool by its claimed owner, Hatmaker. We conclude that Hatmaker’s testimony on pages 12 and 13 of the bill of exceptions shows a positive identification of at least a part of the wool alleged to have been stolen and which was disposed of by Ross at Greenfield. When this identification is considered in connection with the attempt of Ross to explain his possession of the wool he so disposed of there is no room for any reasonable doubt of his guilt. The attempt of persons charged with the criminal possession of property of some kind to explain such possession by the claim that it came to them from some stranger has been worn thread bare in the criminal courts. If, as Ross claims, he purchased this wool from a man by the name of Thomas 1-Iill who resides in Greenup^ Kentucky, it certainly imposed upon him the very positive duty to have this man located and identified,- It is a strange story that this man Hill appeared on the road at Ross’ home with this wool, and sold it to Ross at what appears to be about two thirds of the market price. The jury evidently did not regard this explanation very seriously and this court is not inclined to criticize or interfere with their conclusion in that respect.