alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### *Sisson*and Parmelee *vs.*Willard and others.

In an action on a contract, where the plaintiff is bound to show *performance*on his part to entitle himself to a recovery, the defendant may, under the plea of the *general issue,*show a non-compliance on the part of the plaintiff; it is not necessary, in such case, to *gioe notice*of the defence.

This was an action of *assumpsit,*to recover the sum agreed to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs, for converting a saw-mill into a steam-mill, the plaintiffs finding all the necessary machinery, and *warranting*the mill to do a good business, so as to saw 2,000 feet of pine timber in twelve hours. The cause was heard before a *referee,*who reported $434.28 in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants moved to set aside the report on the ground that the referee rejected evidence offered by them, to [ *374 ] show that the engine, erected by *the plaintiffs, was worthless, by reason of intrinsic defects in its plan and construction, and did not-conform to the terms of the contract.

*285
      *M. T. Reynolds,*for the defendants.

*A. Taber,*for the plaintiffs.

*By the Court,*

Nelson, Oh. J.

I think the referee erred. The defendants offered to prove that the work did not answer the description in the contract, for the purpose of preventing recovery, or at least to reduce the amount: which evidence was rejected. The only plausible ground for the exclusion is, the *want of notice*under the general issue. Had the defence stood exclusively upon a breach of the warranty, I admit the ruling to be correct, 8 *Wend.*109 ; but it did not.

The plaintiffs were bound to show performance in the first instance ; that the machinery and materials for the erection of the steam-mill, as far as they were bound to furnish the same, were good, and that all the work was done with proper skill, and in a workmanlike manner ; and whatever they were bound to prove, as pre-requisites to a recovery, might be disproved by the adverse party.

Report set aside.
#### SCHAEFER v CONSOLIDATED IRON-STEEL MFG CO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9961.

Decided Feb 24, 1930

Francis J. Cook, Cleveland, for Schaefer.

J. R. Kistner, Cleveland, for Mfg. Co.

Vickery, pj.

The only question that needs to be considered in this case is a question of fact and that is, Did F. M. Ashman and Son employ three or more workmen? It seems as though this might depend upon the question as to whether the son in the firm of F. M. Ashman and Son was really ,a partner with his father. If he were, then he could not be counted as a workman, but we think a fair reading of this record will show that while it was a partnership in form, the father F. M. Ashman was really doing business for himself as F. M. Ashman and Son, and the son was an employee of the father and could be counted as one employee to make up the regularly employed; but an examination of this record and the testimony of Ash-man himself will disclose that he never had three or more men regularly employed. He answers the question so himself, and that seems to be the trend of this entire record. There is a bit of evidence in the record which will show that, at the time of this injury, or shortly theretofore, three men had worked for Ashman at one time, but it does not show, — in fact it shows the contrary, — that they were regularly employed, or that three were regularly employed. The son was regularly employed and then at one time the father had Kerns and at’ another time Louis Schaefer, the man who was injured, and at another time “blank”, whose name does not seem to be in the record, but nowhere does it appear that any or all of these men were regularly employed. If he had a job, he would call in an extra man. He had no definite rules of employment and the men were not definitely employed for any particular time, and one construction that can be put upon this testimony is that at no time were three men working for him; but giving it the most liberal construction . possible, all one can say for it is that at one particular time he might have had three men working for him, but nowhere were they regularly employed by him, and so this record shows that F. M. Ashman and Son including the son as a workman, never employed three or more men regularly and, therefore, he did not come within the industrial' compensation act; and if Ashman was not obliged to comply with the compensation act ,a workman for him could not hold *215Ashman’s employer responsible. •

That being the sole question before the commission and the sole question before the Common Pleas Court, and they both having decided that F. M. Ashman and Son did not regularly employ three or more men, we cannot see that there is ;any error in this record, for we think the record bears out this contention, employ three or more men, we cannot see that there is any error in this record, for we think the record bears out this contention.

There being no error in the record, the judgment of the Common Pleas Court will be affirmed.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ., concur.
PROMISSORY NOTE



$5,000.00                                                     February 23, 1999


        The undersigned, Navis Technologies, LTD ("Payor"), promises to pay to
John R. Varsames ("Payee") or order the principal sum of five thousand and
00/100 DOLLARS ($5,000.00) with interest accruing on the unpaid principal
balance at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, the entire principal
balance plus accrued interest being due and payable on demand.

        Such payment(s) shall be made at Payee's residence located at
Burlington, Vermont, or at such other place as the Payee hereof may designate in
writing, and such payments and any other sum due hereunder shall be made in
lawful money of the United States of America.

        This Note may be prepaid without penalty.

        In the case of default, the Payor agrees to pay the reasonable cost of
collection, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

        Every maker, guarantor and endorser waives presentment, demand, protest,
and notice and agrees that the time of payment may be extended without notice or
previous consent.

                                                 Navis Technologies, LTD




ATTEST:    /S/                                   By:  /S/
       ---------------------------                  ---------------------------
       Peter M. Doremus, Secretary                  John R. Varsames, President




Paid in Full

Date:      3/29/99
     -----------------------

Signature:  /S/
          ------------------
SECTION 32.0

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Bancorp of Indiana, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as added by 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2004, that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.




                            /s/ Michael H. Head
                            --------------------------------------
                            Michael H. Head
                            President and Chief Executive Officer



                            /s/ George J. Smith
                            --------------------------------------
                            George J. Smith
                            Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer


Dated: February 13, 2006
39–008 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 113–570 

WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(A) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT 

TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE 

COMMITTEE ON RULES, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES 

JULY 31, 2014.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. COLE, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 700] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 700, by a record vote of 9 to 2, report the same to the 

House with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a twothirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from 

the Rules Committee) against any resolution reported from the 

Rules Committee through the legislative day of September 5, 2014 

relating to the ongoing humanitarian crisis on the U.S. southern 

border, border security, and related immigration law. 

Section 2 of the resolution provides that it shall be in order at 

any time through the legislative day of September 5, 2014, for the 

Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules for 

measures relating to the ongoing humanitarian crisis on the U.S. 

southern border, border security, and related immigration law. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

The results of each record vote on an amendment or motion to 

report, together with the names of those voting for and against, are 

printed below: 

Rules Committee record vote No. 182 

Motion by Ms. Foxx to report the rule. Adopted: 9–2 

Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote 

Ms. Foxx ............................................................ Yea Ms. Slaughter .................................................. Nay 

Mr. Bishop of Utah .......................................... Yea Mr. McGovern ................................................... Nay 

Mr. Cole ............................................................ Yea Mr. Hastings of Florida ................................... ...................

Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea Mr. Polis ........................................................... ...................


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote 

Mr. Nugent ....................................................... Yea 

Mr. Webster ...................................................... Yea 

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen ............................................. Yea 

Mr. Burgess ...................................................... Yea 

Mr. Sessions, Chairman ................................... Yea 

Æ 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
#### § 38.11 Discrimination prohibited based on citizenship status.

In providing any aid, benefit, service, or training under a WIOA Title I-financially assisted program or activity, a recipient must not directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, discriminate on the basis of citizenship status. Individuals protected under this section include citizens and nationals of the United States, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, refugees, asylees, and parolees, and other immigrants authorized by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee to work in the United States. Citizenship discrimination occurs when a recipient maintains and enforces policies and procedures that have the purpose or effect of discriminating against individual beneficiaries, applicants, and participants, on the basis of their status as citizens or nationals of the United States, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, refugees, asylees, and parolees, or other immigrants authorized by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee to work in the United States.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (15,067)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,067)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 28, 2017

No. 04-17-00421-CR & 04-17-00422-CR

John Gabriel GUAJARDO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR6729 & 2014CR9091

Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

In the interest of the efficient administration of the court’s docket, we ORDER Appeal 

Nos. 04-17-00421-CR and 04-17-00422-CR consolidated. The parties must file motions, briefs, 

and other pleadings as if the appeals were one, but put both appeal numbers in the style of the 

case. However, a record must be filed in each appeal. The record in each case will remain 

separate and, if supplementation of the record becomes necessary, the supplemental material 

must be filed in the appeal to which it applies. The cases must be argued together in one brief, as 

in a single appeal, and if oral argument is requested and granted, the entire case must be argued 

as a single appeal, with the total time limit for each party equal to the ordinary time limit for a 

party in a single appeal. The court will dispose of both appeals in the same judgment, opinion, 

and mandate.

We order the clerk of this court to service copies of this order on all counsel, the district 

clerk, and the court reporter. 

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of July, 2017.
___________________________________

Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 5391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2022]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Office of Biotechnology Activities, Office of Science Policy, 
Office of the Director

    Amended Notice of Meeting
    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), February 10, 2011, 8:30 
a.m., National Institutes of Health, Building, 31, Center Drive, 
Conference Room 6, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the 
Federal Register on January 21, 2011, 76 FR3918.
    The meeting is canceled until further notice.

    Dated: January 25, 2011.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-2022 Filed 1-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3208-3209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1304]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Exceptional Family Member 
Program; DD Form 2792; OMB Number 0704--
    Type of Request: New Collection.
    Number of Respondents: 16,470.
    Responses Per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 16,470.

[[Page 3209]]

    Average Burden Per Response: 27 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 7,400.
    Needs and Uses: This information collection requirement is 
necessary to identify medical and educational requirements of family 
members of military Service members and DoD civilian employees when 
family travel to an overseas assignment is being considered. 
Respondents are private physicians and school personnel. The DD form 
2792, ``Exceptional Family Member Program and Educational Summary,'' 
will be completed for family members who have been identified with a 
special medical or educational need to document the medical or 
educational need and service requirements. Their needs will be matched 
to the resources available at the overseas location to determine the 
feasibility of receiving appropriate services in that location. The 
information is used by the military Service's personnel offices for 
purposes of assignment. The DD Form 2792 will be completed for family 
members of civilian employees to document their special health or 
educational needs in order to advise the civilian employee of the 
availability of the needed services.
    Affected Public: Business or Other For-Profit; State, Local, or 
Tribal Government.
    Frequency: Triennal.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Edward C. Springer.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Springer at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.


    Dated: January 13, 2000.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-1304 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
§ 503.18 Validity of temporary labor certification. ( a ) *Validity period.* A temporary labor certification is valid only for the period of time between the beginning and ending dates of employment, as approved on the *Application for Temporary Employment Certification.* The certification expires on the last day of authorized employment.
( b ) *Scope of validity.* A temporary labor certification is valid only for the number of H-2B positions, the area of intended employment, the job classification and specific services or labor to be performed, and the employer specified on the approved *Application for Temporary Employment Certification.* The temporary labor certification may not be transferred from one employer to another unless the employer to which it is transferred is a successor in interest to the employer to which it was issued.
##### 



(a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;(b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based upon
such evaluation; and(d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 /s/ Charles P. Cooley

Charles P. CooleyChief Financial OfficerFebruary 28, 2007
**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 Quarterly Report of Lite King Corporation (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the
      capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




2.  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.


Date:May
                9, 2007
            By:
            /s/
              John
              T. RuddyName:John
                T. RuddyTitle:President
                and Chief
                Executive Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Lite King Corporation and will be retained
      by Lite King Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.




EXHIBIT
            32.1-1
(77 South. 1005)

#### THREADGILL v. STATE.

(5 Div. 257.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Dec. 18, 1917.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; Leon McCord, Judge.

W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.