alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sarah N. Stanwood v. City of Omaha.

Filed January *2,*1894.

No. 5639.

On an appeal from.an award of damages for the construction of a viaduct it appeared from the proof that the damages were grossly inadequate. The verdict and judgment, therefore, are set aside and the cause remanded for farther proceedings.

Error from the district court of Douglas county. Tried below before Davis, J.

*Charles B. Keller,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. J, Connell*and *E. J. Cornish, contra.*

*553Maxwell, C. J.

This is a petition in error to review the judgment of the district court of Douglas county on an award of damages to the plaintiff for injuries to lot 4, block 204, in the city of Omriha, by the erection of the viaduct on Tenth street in said city. The lot in question has a frontage on Tenth street of 132 feet, and on Leavenworth street of sixty-six feet. The viaduct at the point indicated is about thirty feet above the street. The verdict below was $500, in favor of the plaintiff.

The principal objection is that the verdict is against the weight of evidence, the amount of the award being greatly beneath the damages proved. W. Y. Morse, a witness in the case, placed the value of the lot before the construction of the viaduct, in round numbers, at $59,000, and afterwards $31,000. J. B. Carmichael at $49,000 before and $24,000 afterwards. George C. Ames placed the value before at $46,000, and afterwards at $23,000. Lewis S. Reed placed the value before at $39,000, and after such construction at $26,000. George Hobbie placed the value before at $66,000, and after the erection at $33,000. John T. Dillon placed the value before at $52,000, and after the erection at $26,000. These witnesses are shown to be well acquainted with the value of real estate in Omaha, arid in that particular part of the city, and we do not think this testimony is overcome by that on behalf of the city. But the testimony as to the rental of the buildings is much stronger in favor of the plairitiff. Before the erection of the viaduct the plaintiff received as rental for the ground alone the sum of $1,200, the taxes being paid by the lessee; and the lessee sublet the premises for nearly or quite twice that sum; but after the erection of the viaduct the rents were greatly reduced, more than one-half, and it was1 diffi1 cult to find paying tenants even at the reduced rate. These facts show that the property has been greatly injured for *554•either sale or lease, and that $500 is a grossly inadequate sum for the damages sustained. The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.
----

----

----

I Informace

Komise

----

Směnné kurzy vůči euro (1)

24. listopadu 2004

(2004/C 288/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Zdroj: referenční směnné kurzy jsou publikovány ECB.

----

----

Předběžné oznámení o spojení podniků

(Případ č. j. COMP/M.3576 – ECT/PONL/Euromax)

(2004/C 288/02)

(Text s významem pro EHP)

----

(1)Úř. věst. L 24, 29.1.2004, s. 1.

----

----

Předběžné oznámení o spojení podniků

(Případ č. j. COMP/M.M.3633 – Alcadis/Isuzu/Mitsubishi/Isuzu Benelux JV)

Případ, který může být posouzen ve zjednodušeném řízení

(2004/C 288/03)

(Text s významem pro EHP)

----

(1)Úř. věst. L 24, 29.1.2004, s. 1.

(2)  Přístupné na webových stránkách GŘ pro hospodářskou soutěž:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

----

----

Předběžné oznámení o spojení podniků

(Případ č. j. COMP/M.3611 – BorgWarner/BERU)

Případ, který může být posouzen ve zjednodušeném řízení

(2004/C 288/04)

(Text s významem pro EHP)

----

(1)Úř. věst. L 24, 29.1.2004, s. 1.

(2)  Přístupné na webových stránkách GŘ pro hospodářskou soutěž:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

----

----

Předběžné oznámení o spojení podniků

(Případ č. j. COMP/M.3655 – CERBERUS/PEGUFORM)

Případ, který může být posouzen ve zjednodušeném řízení

(2004/C 288/05)

(Text s významem pro EHP)

----

(1)Úř. věst. L 24, 29.1.2004, s. 1.

(2)  Přístupné na webových stránkách GŘ pro hospodářskou soutěž:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

----

----

JEDNOTNÉ POUŽITÍ KOMBINOVANÉ NOMENKLATURY (KN)

(Zařazení zboží)

Vysvětlivky přijaté v souladu s procedurou definovanou v čl. 10 odst. 1 nařízení Rady (EHS) č. 2658/87 ze dne 23. července 1987 o celní a statistické nomenklatuře a o společném celním sazebníku (1), naposledy změněného nařízením Komise (ES) č. 1558/2004 (2)

(2004/C 288/06)

„Vysvětlivky ke kombinované nomenklatuře Evropských Společenství“ (3) se mění následovně:

Na straně 354 se vkládá následující text:

----

(1)Úř. věst. L 256, 7.9.1987, s. 1.

(2)Úř. věst. L 283, 2.9.2004, s. 7.

(3)Úř. věst. C 256, 23.10.2002, s. 1.

----
(75 South. 1005)

#### DAVIDSON v. STATE.

(6 Div. 366.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 19, 1917.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Wm. E. Port, Judge.

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

PER CURIAM.

Abated by death of appellant
AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE
                   LONGVIEW FIBRE COMPANY SALARIED SAVINGS PLAN AND
                             TRUST WITH 401(k) PROVISIONS

     WHEREAS, Longview Fibre Company (the "Company"), approved and adopted the 
Longview Fibre Company Salaried Savings Plan (the "Plan") and Trust Agreement 
(the "Trust") which were originally effective June 1, 1977 and most recently 
restated effective November 1, 1990, and subsequently amended;

     WHEREAS, Section 19.1 of the Plan and Trust provides that the Company 
reserves the right to amend the Plan and Trust;

     NOW THEREFORE RESOLVED, that Appendix A is amended effective February 1, 
1995 to include LifePath Funds as follows:

                      APPENDIX A - INVESTMENT FUNDS

The Investment Funds offered to Participants and Beneficiaries include this 
set of daily valued funds:

     *  Asset Allocation Fund
     *  U.S. Treasury Allocation Fund
     *  S&P 500 Stock Fund
     *  Employer Stock Fund
     *  Income Accumulation Fund 1/
     *  LifePath 2000 Fund
     *  LifePath 2010 Fund
     *  LifePath 2020 Fund
     *  LifePath 2030 Fund
     *  LifePath 2040 Fund

If investment instructions are not received from any Participant, his or her 
investment instructions shall be assumed to be a 100% investment in the Income 
Accumulation Fund.

A Participant may direct the investment of his or her entire Account except 
for the following Contribution types which shall be invested as follows:

     *  PAYSOP Accounts are invested entirely in the Employer Stock Fund

1/  On July 16, 1991, New Jersey Insurance regulators took control of Mutual 
Benefit Life Insurance Company.  At that time, approximately 37% of the 
Longview Income Accumulation Fund was invested in a GIC with Mutual Benefit.  
Due to the uncertain condition of Mutual Benefit, the portion of the fund 
represented by the Mutual Benefit contract was put in a separate fund called 
the Mutual Benefit GIC Fund, where it will be held until such time as the 
ability of Mutual Benefit to meet its obligations is known.  Accounts of 
participants who participated in this fund in July 1991 were frozen in this 
separate Mutual Benefit Fund and are not available for distribution, loan or 
investment changes until further notice.  Investments in the Longview Income 
Accumulation Fund after July 1991 are not affected by the seizure of Mutual 
Benefit by state insurance regulators.

Date:  January 31, 1995                LONGVIEW FIBRE COMPANY
                                       By:\s\ L. J. Holbrook
                                       Title: Sr. V.P.-Finance

The provisions of the above amendment which relate to the Trustee are hereby 
approved and executed.

Date:  February 9, 1995                WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
                                       By:\s\ Dolores Upton
                                       Title: Vice President

Date:  February 9, 1995                WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
                                       By:\s\ Gwyn E. Slack
                                       Title: Vice President
<PAGE>
[671 NE2d 1265, 648 NYS2d 868]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Cubino, Appellant.

Decided September 10, 1996

*999APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*John Gemmill,*New York City, and *Daniel L. Greenberg*for appellant.

*Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney*of New York County, New York City *(Maura E. Daly*of counsel), for respondent.

*Joseph Calluori,*New York City, for New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, *amicus curiae.*

*Erica Horwitz,*New York City, for New York Criminal Bar Association, *amicus curiae.*

*T. Barry Kingham,*New York City, for New York Council of Defense Lawyers, *amicus curiae.*

*1000OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of one count of criminal trespass in the second degree and one count of burglary in the second degree. On the appeal to the Appellate Division, defendant contended that part of the trial court’s instruction to the jury on reasonable doubt diluted the standard of proof by referencing that standard to decisions jurors might be called upon to make in their personal lives. The Appellate Division affirmed in a plurality decision with two dissenting votes. We now affirm on the appeal to our Court, here by leave of the Presiding Justice at the Appellate Division.

The preferred phrasing to convey the concept and degree of reasonable doubt is illustrated in the Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions: "The doubt, to be a reasonable doubt, should be one which a reasonable person acting in a matter of this, importance would be likely to entertain because of the evidence or because of the lack or insufficiency of the evidence in the case” (CJI 6:20, at 249). The comparative characterization used in the instruction by the trial court in this case was less definitive and potentially more troublesome than the preferred language and such variations should be avoided. As ultimately noted by the plurality memorandum, however, and as emphasized by Justice Mazzarelli in her concurring opinion at the Appellate Division, the objected-to portion of the instruction did not dilute the standard of required proof here nor did it deprive this defendant of a fair trial in the context of the entire balanced and correct set of instructions given.

Appellant’s other arguments have been considered, and we conclude that, to the extent they are even preserved for our review, they are without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.
#### § 502.15 Enforcement.

The investigation, inspections and law enforcement functions to carry out the provisions of sec. 218 of the INA, as provided in these regulations for enforcement by the WHD, pertain to the employment of any H-2A worker and any other U.S. worker hired in corresponding employment by an H-2A employer. Such enforcement includes work contract provisions as defined in § 501.10(a). The work contract also includes those employment benefits which are required to be stated in the job offer, as prescribed in 20 CFR 655.104.
#### § 452.124 Delegates from units which are not labor organizations.

To the extent that units, such as committees, which do not meet the definition of a labor organization under the Act[55] participate in the election of officers of a national or international labor organization or an intermediate body, through delegates to the convention or otherwise, the provisions of title IV are, nevertheless, applicable to the election of such delegates. The following example is typical in organizations of railway employees. The chairman of a local grievance committee, which is not a labor organization under the Act, is not an officer within the meaning of the Act. If such a local chairman is a delegate to the general grievance committee, which is considered to be an intermediate body under the Act, however, he must be elected by secret ballot vote of the members he represents, if he votes for officers of the general grievance committee.

###### Footnotes -
  452.124

[55] Act, sec. 3 (i) and (j) and part 451 of this chapter.
#### In the Matter of Cassandra Diaz et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted May 30, 1995;

decided September 7, 1995

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order dismissing appellants’ appeal from Supreme Court’s order denying reargument and renewal, dismissed upon the ground that that portion of the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied, with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements.
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 110-343), the Salmon-Challis National Forest's Central Idaho Resource Advisory Committee will conduct a business meeting which is open to the public.

# DATES:

Tuesday, August 30, 2011, beginning at 10:30 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

Salmon-Challis N.F. South Zone Office, Highway 93, Challis, Idaho.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda topics will include, presentation of proposed projects, evaluation of projects proposals, and approval and recommendation of some projects for Title II funding for 2012. Some RAC members may attend the meeting by conference call, telephone, or electronically.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frank Guzman, Forest Supervisor, at 208-756-5111.

August 2, 2011.

Frank V. Guzman,

Forest Supervisor and Designated Federal Officer.

[FR Doc. 2011-20209 Filed 8-8-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
US DepmmentofTransportatiorf ·· Docket.Oper.a:tions; M.t30' •.**~:** ·, J

West Building ground floor, Room W12-140 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Gentlemen: 4616 Chippendale prive Fort Collins CO 80526 ·.**·septe~J:)er** 2,.2oi2 ··

I" <,.' .. A**~** _:_!_ •. : \. '·'·

:' 1:. 'i'" ... ·-;·,, \

RE Exemption Number 7734C, from 14 CFR, FAR 91.109(A) and FAR91.109(b)(3) DocketNumber FAA-2002-11499 I wishto renewthis exemption-whichallows giving dual instruction inBeech airplanes having throw-over c.ontrols to:iiidividuals qualified to serve as PIC inthe airplanes under certain circumstances. Other than having accumulated about 150 additional incident-free flight hours operating under this exemption, there have been no changes that would affect the. original exemption request. The conditions and reasons regardingpublic interest and safety presented in the original petition upon which the exemptionwas granted remain the same. Therefore, I request an extension. · · Should any further databe required, please inquire at 970 223-4750. FAX 970 206-0183 Very truly yours,

CFI3055258
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

PRESS ENERGY SERVICES, LLC AND 

CHRISTOPHER JAMES NISSLEY,

 

 Appellants,

v.

JAVIER BUSTILLOS RUIZ,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00179-CV

Appeal from the

143rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 18-01-22264-CVR)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellants’ Motion to Reinstate which this Court has construed

as a Motion to Reestablish the Appellate Timetable.

Therefore, the Court ORDERS this appeal to continue, the appellate timetable suspension 

is lifted and the Reporter’s Record (6 volumes + 6 exhibit volumes) received on August 15, 2019 

and August 19, 2019 have this day been filed. The Clerk’s Record is due 30 days from the date of 

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of September, 2019.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 23.1

[ex231002.gif]

Cathedral Rock Enterprises, LLC

James C. Barker, CPG 8205, Consulting Geologist

P.M. Box 145, 3875 Geist Road, Suite E

Fairbanks, Alaska  99709



1-1-3191 541-934-2970 msg

jcbarkergeo@gmail.com



CONSENT OF EXPERT



United States Securities and Exchange Commission



I, James C. Barker, Professional Geologist of Cathedral Rock Enterprises, LLC, co-authored and prepared:



§

The report titled Summary of Field Investigations 2004, December, 2004

§

The report titled Chandalar Mining District, A Report of Findings and Recommendations, 2005, January 2, 2006

§

The report titled Chandalar Mining District, Annual Report of Findings for 2006, March 15, 2007, and

§

The report titled Evaluation of the Chandalar Mining Property, May 5, 2008, prepared together with Robert B. Murray, a Certified Professional Geologist licensed to practice in Oregon, and Jeffery O. Keener

I hereby consent to the filing of the reports with the Annual Report on form 10K on or around April 12, 2014, and the use of and references to the subject matter of the reports contained therein.  I also consent to the use of my name in the Annual Report on form 10K in regard to preparation of the reports.



Dated this 3rd day of April, 2014



[ex231003.jpg]



James C. Barker

Managing Member, Cathedral Rock Enterprises, LLC

Certified Professional Geologist #8205

Certified Alaskan Geologist G-262
<PAGE>   1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 listed
below of Coyote Network Systems, Inc., formerly The Diana Corporation, of our
report dated September 22, 1997, except as to the last paragraph of Note 8,
which is as of November 4, 1998 and the "Discontinuance of Switch Business"
section of Note 2, which is as of May 8, 2000, relating to the financial
statements and financial statement schedule of The Diana Corporation, which
appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 5).



     1. Registration Statement on Form S-3


        (Registration No. 33-88392)



     2. Registration Statement on Form S-8


        (Registration No. 33-67188)



     3. Registration Statement on Form S-3


        (Registration No. 33-1055)



     4. Registration Statement on Form S-8


        (Registration No. 33-63011)



     5. Registration Statement on Form S-8


        (Registration No. 33-63013)



     6. Registration Statement on Form S-8


        (Registration No. 33-63017)


/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Milwaukee, Wisconsin


June 29, 2000


                                       81
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0099

_______________________________________________________________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RUSTY DEWAYNE WAGONER

Defendant and Appellant

_______________________________________________________________________

ORDER

_______________________________________________________________________

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause 

appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that appellant is granted an extension of time to and 

include April 17, 2021, within which to prepare, file and serve, Appellant’s opening brief

on appeal. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 11 2021

03/11/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0099
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 98 (Friday, May 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12748]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Los Alamos

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting; correction.

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

    On May 9, 2000, the Department of Energy published a notice of open 
meeting announcing a meeting on May 24, 2000 of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Los Alamos (65 FR 26824). In 
that notice the meeting address was Highlands University, Kennedy Hall, 
11th Street and University Avenue, Las Vegas, New Mexico. Today's 
notice is announcing that the meeting address has changed due to the 
fires at Los Alamos. The new meeting address is 2040 South Pacheco 
Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505.

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 16, 2000.
Rachel M. Samuel,
Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-12748 Filed 5-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Exhibit 10.7


 


 


License Agreement - Umajin
Hong Kong Limited Corp Mr. Hideaki Takahashi The License Fee Hong Kong Dollars $6200 the Deposit Two month’s license fee
(HK $ 17000 3 access card(s) (HK$100/A) Total Hong Kong Dollars $17375.00 Apex Business Centre Limited Mr. Alfred Weng, 25 June
2014, Unajin Hong Kong Limited 25 June 2014
###### Editorial Note on Part 7

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 7 appear at 61 FR 19985, May 3, 1996.

#### § 7.11 Right to counsel.

Each interested person or party shall have the right to appear in person or by or with counsel or other qualified representative in any proceeding before the Board.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7406 

ROBERT EARL VANCE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PHILLIP MCCLOUD; RANDALL; PATRICIA WILLIAMS;

AMY ENLOE,

Defendants - Appellees,

PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.

(CA-03-3515)

Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 2, 2006

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Earl Vance, Appellant Pro Se. William Benson Darwin, Jr.,

HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, P.A., Spartanburg, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Earl Vance appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Vance v.

McCloud, No. CA-03-3515 (D.S.C. Aug. 19, 2005). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED