alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The Trustees of the Catholic Church in Taylorsville *vs*Offutt’s Administrators, &c.

Error to the Spencer Circuit.

Chancery!

*Case*118.

The will of Offutt.

*Wills. Devises. Legacies.*

*June.*25.

Chief Justice Ewing

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Z. B. Offutt of Taylorsville died, having first made his nun-cupative will, which was written out in the following words, not signed but admitted to record : “In the name of God, Amen, I, Zephaniah B. Offutt, being very feeble but of sound mind, do make this my last will and testament: 1st, I bequeath to my beloved wife all my *moneyed estate,*and all the *negroes*which Ireceived with her, and their increase during her lifetime, and to dispose of them as she may think proper. Also all my wearing apparal; I will and bequeath five hundred dollars to the Catholic church, I will and bequeath to the *536Baptist Church,-Presbyterian and Methodist churches, subject to usury, if plead by the persons the debts are coming from, one hundred dollars each. I leave my beloved wife exeeutrix with one or two- others whom she may select. The balance of my slaves to be subject to my wife, and if she cannot manage them, she may sell them.”

The testator made a nun cupative will, in which these words were used: “I bequeath to my beloved wife all my *moneyed*asíate, and all the negroes which I received with her, &e.” The testator owned no lands, but was a money lender, had cash notes formoneys lent and had some slaves— Held that his *(moneyed estate*embraced his money, cash notes, and securities for money.

O.'devised to the Catholic Church $500, to the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Meiho■dist Churches, each, $100— Held that as there was a church of each denomin a t i o n named, in the village of the residence of the testator, that they were the ■objects of the testator’s bounty, and toolc legacy.

*B. Iiardin*for plaintiffs: *McHenry*for defendants.

It appears in proof that the four denominations of Christians mentioned in the will, had each a church and house of worship in Taylorsville, the place of the deeeas: ed’s residence and death, that he was a money lender or dealer in money, and possessed no lands and but little estate other than slaves, had money loaned out at interest and secured by notes, and had but little and rarely kept but little money on hand, but had many thousand dollars due him out at interest.

These *facts*appearing, we are satisfied that the churches of the town, of the residence of the deceased, were the churches intended by the bequest to each of them. And that the bequest is a charity which was properly enforced by the-chancellor, subject however, to a -ratable dedue. tion, for any drawback upon his moneyed estate for usury exacted; and further that his *moneyed estate*embraced not only his *money*on hand at his death, but also all moneys due him by bond, note or otherwise, all of which was property decreed to his wife after the payment of the foregoing specific bequests.

The decree of the Circuit Court is, therefore, affirmed with costs.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EC00-93-000]

Take notice that on May 17, 2000, SOWEGA Power LLC (SOWEGA Power) submitted for filing an application under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act for approval of (1) the transfer of control over SOWEGA Power's jurisdictional transmission facilities and paper facilities as a result of a transfer of ownership of SOWEGA Power from its existing owners, Grady Electric Membership Cooperative (Grady EMC) and Three Notch Electric Membership Cooperative (Three Notch EMC) to SOWEGA Energy Resources LLC, a new company to be owned by Grady EMC, Three Notch EMC, and ConerStone Operating Services, Inc., and (2) a transfer of SOWEGA Power's interest in certain 230 kV bus facilities to Baconton Power LLC.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before June 16, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims. htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-13223  Filed 5-25-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
An official website of the United States government
          Here’s how you know
        Here’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A
              **.gov** website belongs to an official government
              organization in the United States.
        **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A
              **lock** (
              Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Skip navigation
  ADA HomeADA HistoryPart One: Origins of the ADAPart Two: Crafting the LawPart Three: The ADA Becomes LawAchieving the PromiseTools and TechHealth CareLearn, Work and PlayReal People
 Home
          ADA
          Stacy Ellingen Stacy Ellingen
 Stacy Ellingen is a business owner, graphic designer, and disability advocate. She manages the Self-Determination Network, an online community for people with disabilities. Stacy is an active member of many communities and has had opportunities to learn, work, and live independently. Still, she says, barriers and inequalities remain. Stacy hopes to see increased access to public buildings and transportation in the future.

                    *Last modified on 07/24/2020* Stacy EllingenStacy Ellingen
 Back to Top    More on the ADA
  

        
      ACL's 31st Anniversary of the ADA page
                      ADA.gov
                      ADA National Network
                      #ThanksToTheADA campaignSITE SUPPORT
  

        
      Home
                      Accessibility
                      Contact Us
                      Disclaimers
                      Freedom of Information Act
                      Privacy policy
                      Site Map
                      Viewers and PlayersRELATED SITES
  

        
      Administration for Community Living
                      HHS Office for Civil Rights
                      Department of Health and Human Services
                      CMS: Access to Care
                      No Fear Act (on HHS.gov)
                      Plain Writing (on HHS.gov)
                      USA.gov
                      White House
#### § 780.600 Scope and significance of interpretative bulletin.

Subpart A of this part 780 and this subpart G together constitute the official interpretative bulletin of the Department of Labor with respect to the meaning and application of section 13(b)(13) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended. This section provides an exemption from the overtime pay provisions of the Act for certain employees who, in the same workweek, are employed by a farmer in agriculture and also in the farmer's livestock auction operations. As appears more fully in subpart A of this part, interpretations in this bulletin with respect to provisions of the Act discussed are official interpretations upon which reliance may be placed and which will guide the Secretary of Labor and the Administrator in the performance of their duties under the Act. The general exemptions provided in sections 13(a)(6) and 13(b)(12) of the Act for employees employed in agriculture are not discussed in this subpart except in its relation to section 13(b)(13). The meaning and application of these exemptions are fully considered in subparts D and E of this part 780.
# Comparable

# Non-Comparable

# Sheet2

# Sheet3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KELVIN ALLEN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

E. BIRDSONG, M.D.; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 15568

D.C. No. 3:14

- cv

- 04109

- JST

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 16 , 2018 **

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ , Circuit Judges.

Ke l vin Allen, a California state pri soner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051 , 1056 (9th Cir.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JAN 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 15568

2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Allen failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were

deliberately indifferent in treating Allen ’s back problems . See id

. at 1057

- 60 (a

prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and

disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner ’ s health; a mere difference in medical

opinion , or even medical negligence, is insufficient to est ab lish deliberate

indifference); Hansen v. Black , 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Supervisory

liability exists .

. . if supervisory officials implement a policy so deficient that the

policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and is the moving force of the

constitutional violation.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse i ts discretion in denying Allen’s motion to

appoint counsel be cause Allen did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See

Terrell v. Brewer , 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) ( setting forth standard of

review and requirements for appointment of counsel).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly ra ised and argued

in the opening bri ef

. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We do not cons ider matters not properly presented to the district court. See

Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv. , 535 F.3d 1058, 1080 (9th Cir. 2008)

( explaining that where “the complaint does not include the necessary factu al3 17

- 15568

allegations to state a claim, raising such claim in a summary judgment motion is

insufficient to present th e claim to the district court ”).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CCBT Financial
Companies, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 , as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer for the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.


/s/ STEPHEN B. LAWSON, President and Chief Executive Officer
------------------------------------------------------------
 Stephen B. Lawson, President and Chief Executive Officer


Date: May 13, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,659,864
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  307,657
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,048,460
<PP&E>                                             562
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,371,092
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          254,406
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,116,678
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,371,092
<SALES>                                      2,840,554
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,266,568
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               176,169
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,090,399
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,950
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,084,449
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,084,449
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.54


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                 EXHIBIT 10(0)

                               LYNCH CORPORATION

                       DIRECTORS STOCK PLAN (THE "PLAN")


1.       Each person who is a director of Lynch Corporation (the "Corporation")
         (but is not an employee of the Corporation) on the first business day
         of each year (except that the date of grant for 1996 shall be February
         1, 1996) shall be granted as of said business day a number of shares
         of common stock of the Corporation ("Common Stock") equal to $15,000
         divided by the average closing price of the Common Stock on the
         American Stock Exchange for the 30 trading days preceding the date of
         grant of the shares (January 2, 1996 in the case of the 1996 grant)
         (whether or not the Common Stock traded on said day), but the number
         of shares of Common Stock shall not be less than 200.  Any person who
         becomes such a director after the first business day of a year may, at
         the option of the Board of Directors, be granted a number of shares of
         Common Stock for that year up to the number of shares awarded to other
         directors for that year.  Unless otherwise determined by the Board of
         Directors, if a director receiving a grant in a particular year is not
         a director on March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31 of said
         year, the director shall
<PAGE>   2
         promptly transfer to the Corporation 100%, 75%, 50%, or 25%,
         respectively, of the shares received for that year.  Certificates
         issued by the Corporation may contain (i) an appropriate legend as to
         the foregoing obligation and (ii) an appropriate securities laws
         legend.

2.       The Plan may be amended in any respect or discontinued at any time by
         action of the Board of Directors of the Corporation; provided,
         however, that any such action shall not affect any shares of Common
         Stock previously granted and provided further that the Plan provisions
         may not be amended more than once every six months, other than to
         comply with changes in the Internal Revenue Code, the Employee
         Retirement Income Security Act or the rules therewith.  Adoption of
         the Plan does not create any limitation on the power of the Board of
         Directors to create other plans or programs for directors.
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.207 Housatonic River. ( a ) The draw of the US 1 Bridge, mile 3.5, at Stratford, shall open on signal; except that, from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., Monday through Friday, and 4 p.m. to 5:45 p.m. daily, the draw need not open for the passage of vessels. From December 1 through March 31, from 8 p.m. to 4 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least six-hours notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
( b ) The draw of the Metro-North (Devon) bridge, mile 3.9 at Stratford, shall operate as follows: ( 1 ) The draw shall open on signal between 4:30 a.m. and 9 p.m. after at least a two-hour advance notice is given; except that, from 5:45 a.m. through 9:45 a.m. and from 4 p.m. through 8 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic unless an emergency exists.
( 2 ) From 9 p.m. through 4:30 a.m. the draw shall open on signal after at least a four-hour advance notice is given.
( 3 ) A delay in opening the draw not to exceed 10 minutes may occur when a train scheduled to cross the bridge without stopping has entered the drawbridge lock.
( 4 ) Requests for bridge openings may be made by calling the bridge via marine radio VHF FM Channel 13 or the telephone number posted at the bridge.
[CGD 82-025, 49 FR 43458, Oct. 29, 1984, as amended by CGD3 85-42, 50 FR 26711, June 28, 1985; CGD01-99-085, 64 FR 60673, Nov. 8, 1999; USCG-2022-0519, 89 FR 4549, Jan. 24, 2024]
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,
Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahr a Bridget M. McCormac k
David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstei n Kurtis T. Wilde r Elizabeth T. Clement,
J ustices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at t he direction of the Court.

May 29, 2018

a0521 

# Order

Clerk May 29, 2018

156220(57)

BRENDA HOOGENSTYN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 156 220 COA: 332063 Kent CC: 14-010008-NH ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATES OF GRAND RAPIDS, PC, and JULIAN KUZ, M.D., Defendants-Appellees,

and

WALKER SURGICAL CENTER, LLC, and MICHAEL BURTON, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s February 20, 2018 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6397

KENNETH WAYNE INSCORE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge.

(CA-96-522-5)

Submitted: March 31, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Wayne Inscore, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca A. Betts, United

States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Wayne Inscore appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) complaint. Inscore’s case was

referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

(1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Inscore that failure to file timely objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Inscore

failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Inscore has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Inscore’s motions to expedite this appeal are denied as moot. We

deny Inscore’s motion for the appointment of counsel and 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
# Figure 1 Number of Persons 65+

# Figure 1 Number of Persons 65+

# Figure 2 Marital Status

# Figure 2 Marital Status

# Figure 3 Living Arrangements

# Figure 3 Living Arrangements

# Figure 4a State Map Number 65+

# Figure 4b State Map Percent 65+

# Figure 5 State Map changes

# Figure 6 Population by State

# Figure 7F Family Income

# Figure 7P Personal Income

# Figure 7P Personal Income

# Figure 8 Health Insurance

# Figure 8 Health Insurance

# Figure 9 Activity Limitation

# Figure 9 Activity Limitation
### The HONORABLE CAROL E. JACKSON, United States Distric t * 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation. The Honorab le Jerry Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge 1 

### for the Eastern District of Arkansas. No. 95-4241
Reginald Smith, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Roger Endell, Director, Arkansas * Department of Correction, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

Submitted: June 14, 1996 Filed: June 26, 1996

Befor e MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and JACKSON, * District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

In th is habeas case brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), petitione r asserted six grounds in an effort to invalidate his state court conviction for firs t-degree murder. The magistrate judge concluded that five o f 1 those claims were defaulted and that the defaults were not excused and tha t the sixth claim was n ot reviewable under the rule of Stone v. Powell , 428 U.S. 465 (1976).

### The Honorab le G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge 2 

### for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2- The d istrict court adopted the findings and recommendations of th e 2 magistrate judge and dismissed the petition.

We have read the record carefully and discern no legal error o r clearly erroneous factual finding. We affirm th e judgment of the district court on the basis of the well-reasoned opinion of the magistrate judge.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.