alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hutchinson Lumber Company *v.*Dickerson.

Lumpkin, J.

1. Where a contract was made for the sale of certain lumber, ■ stated to be air-dried and of a specified character, evidence that it was stacked in piles, “with sticks between it, so that the air could go through it, ventilate it,” was admissible. But evidence that the mill superintendent was an old hand at stacking lumber, and would have stacked each day’s cutting the next day, was not admissible.

2. Where the proprietor of a sawmill sold certain lumber, and it was in . controversy whether such lumber came up to warranty, it was not competent to show that he had sold lumber of the same kind to other customers, and that all of the boards “went through without any trouble whatever, with the exception of this lot.” Whether other customers accepted boards sent to them without trouble did not show whether the boards sold to the defendant complied with the warranty made as to them.

3. If the sale was executed, a breach of warranty would not annul it or authorize the purchaser afterwards to return the property to the vendor without the consent of the latter, but would give the purchaser a right to damages, in a proper case. But if the sale was executory, and the property tendered was materially different from that ordered, the purchaser could refuse to accept it.

4:.'Under the brief of evidence contained in the record, it is difficult to de*329termine with certainty whether the sale was executed or executory. The contract appears to have been by correspondence. Some of the letters were introduced in evidence and some were not. The first letter from the vendor which was introduced refers to an earlier letter, and also indicates that the lumber was to be delivered “f. o. b. mill.” The written acceptance is not in the brief. The lumber was paid for. An officer of the defendant testified, in parol, that the boards were shipped to a named city for inspection, and were subject to final inspection at the destination; that they were paid for in advance, he having confidence in the vendor, and under a practice to charge back the “eullage,” which was rejected; that the lumber in controversy was inspected upon arrival and was rejected. *Held,*that there should be a new trial in the case; and upon such trial the law can be applied according as it may appear whether in fact the sale was executed or executory.

Submitted July 18, 1906,

Decided January 16, 1907.

Complaint. Before Judge Henderson. City court of 'Vienna. 'November 1, 1905.

*Hill & Boyal,*for plaintiff in error.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, 0. J„ absent.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             195
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,298
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,088
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,948
<PP&E>                                           4,393
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,185
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,955
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,693
<BONDS>                                            115
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           719
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,054)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,955
<SALES>                                          5,424
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,424
<CGS>                                            3,654
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,099
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (490)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 379
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,564)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,564)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,564)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.28)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 52696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21417]

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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (11-077)]

Notice of Intent To Grant Partially Exclusive License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of intent to grant partially exclusive license.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 
37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant 
a partially exclusive license in the United States to practice the 
inventions described and claimed in USPN 6,133,036, Preservation of 
Liquid Biological Samples, NASA Case No. MSC- 22616-2 and USPN 
6,716,392, Preservation of Liquid Biological Samples, NASA Case No. 
MSC- 22616-3 to Quest Diagnostics Incorporated having its principal 
place of business in Madison, New Jersey. The patent rights in these 
inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as 
represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. The prospective partially exclusive license will comply 
with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

DATES: The prospective partially exclusive license may be granted 
unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, 
NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument that 
establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with 
the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Competing 
applications completed and received by NASA within fifteen (15) days of 
the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to 
the grant of the contemplated partially exclusive license.
    Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made 
available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by 
law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 
U.S.C. 552.

ADDRESSES: Objections relating to the prospective license may be 
submitted to Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, NASA Johnson 
Space Center, 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston, Texas 77058, Mail Code AL; 
Phone (281) 483-3021; Fax (281) 483-6936.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kurt G. Hammerle, Intellectual 
Property Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, NASA Johnson Space Center, 
2101 NASA Parkway, Houston, Texas 77058, Mail Code AL; Phone (281) 483-
1001; Fax (281) 483-6936. Information about other NASA inventions 
available for licensing can be found online at http://technology.nasa.gov/.

    Dated: August 17, 2011.
Richard W. Sherman,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-21417 Filed 8-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
ACL Protection and Advocacy for Assistive Technology Awards for the States/Territories

FY 2018 Annual Allocation

5/17/2018

State/Territory

Protection and 

Advocacy for 

Assistive 

Technology (PAAT)

Alabama $58,766

Alaska $50,000

Arizona $83,751

Arkansas $50,000

California $474,275

Colorado $66,949

Connecticut $50,000

Delaware $50,000

District of Columbia $50,000

Florida $249,070

Georgia $124,585

Hawaii $50,000

Idaho $50,000

Illinois $154,687

Indiana $80,150

Iowa $50,000

Kansas $50,000

Kentucky $53,614

Louisiana $56,571

Maine $50,000

Maryland $72,700

Massachusetts $82,310

Michigan $119,968

Minnesota $66,700

Mississippi $50,000

Missouri $73,625

Montana $50,000

Nebraska $50,000

Nevada $50,000

New Hampshire $50,000

New Jersey $108,080

New Mexico $50,000

New York $238,591

North Carolina $122,608

North Dakota $50,000

Ohio $140,342

Oklahoma $50,000

Oregon $50,000

Pennsylvania $154,478

Rhode Island $50,000

South Carolina $59,948

South Dakota $50,000

Tennessee $80,369

Texas $336,677

Utah $50,000

Vermont $50,000

Virginia $101,644

Washington $88,064

West Virginia $50,000

Wisconsin $69,827

Wyoming $50,000

American Samoa $30,000

Guam $30,000

Northern Mariana Islands $30,000

Puerto Rico $50,000

Virgin Islands $30,000

Native American Protection and Advocacy Inc. $30,000

TOTAL $4,768,349
EXHIBIT 10(v)

DEBT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT



Agreement made on December 19, 2002 between Zmax Capital Corp. with offices located at 1818-1177 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6E 2K3, referred to as Creditor and Sona Development Corp. with offices located at 1818-1177 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, British Columbia V6E 2K3 referred to as Debtor.



SECTION ONE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF EXISTING OBLIGATION



The parties acknowledge that Debtor is at present indebted to Creditor in the sum of $37,253 due to office space provided to Debtor in 2001 and 2002.



SECTION TWO
AGREEMENT FOR DIFFERENT METHOD OF PAYMENT



Debtor and Creditor desire and agree, to provide for the payment of the above-stated indebtedness in accordance with terms an provisions different from, and in substitution of, the terms and obligations for payment for same contained in the original loan obligation as described in Section One above.



SECTION THREE
CONSIDERATION



In consideration of the mutual promises contained in this Agreement, Debtor and Creditor agree as follows:



|a. | Method of Payment:Debtor agrees to pay to Creditor and Creditor agrees to accept from Debtor, in full satisfaction of the indebtedness described in Section One, above, 74,506 shares of Debtor's common stock, valued at $0.50 a share, as consideration for monies owed to Creditor as a result of office space provided by Creditor to Debtor.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|b. | Satisfaction: On execution of this Agreement and Creditor's board of directors resolution authorizing the issuance of 74,506 shares of Debtor's common stock to Creditor provided for in Section Three (a) above, the original indebtedness of Debtor to Creditor, as described in Section One, above, will be forever cancelled and discharged. 



In witness whereof, the parties have executed this Agreement in Vancouver, British Columbia on the date first mentioned above.



Sona Development Corp.



/s/ Nora CoccaroBy: Nora Coccaro, President



Zmax Capital Corp.

/s/ Holly GoringBy: Holy Goring, Corporate Secretary

- 24 -

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### EAARL topography - Natchez Trace Parkway 2007: First surface

By: Amar NayegandhiJohn Brock**C. Wayne WrightMartha SeguraXan Yates

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds392

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.725 Manantico Creek.

The draw of the highway bridge, mile 0.5 at Millville, need not be opened for the passage of vessels.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36277, June 25, 2010.

2. At 89 FR 22946, Apr. 3, 2024, part 1 was amended by revising the authority citation; however, the amendment could not be incorporated due to inaccurate amendatory instruction.

#### § 1.26-25 Payment of charges.

(a) The payment of charges shall be by postal money order or check payable to “U.S. Coast Guard,” and given or sent to the office of the Coast Guard performing the service or furnishing the supplies, equipment, etc.
### M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 81ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF KARNES COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on July 1, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or

reverse your judgment between

Robert Leal and Ramiro Leal, Appellant

V.

Cuanto Antes Mejor, LLC, Appellee

No. 04

- 14

- 00694

- CV and Tr. Ct. No. 13

- 02

- 00041

- CVK

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s

Order and Final Judgment Regarding Summary Judgment is AFFIRMED.

It is ORDERED that appellee recover its costs of appeal from appellants.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on October 1, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853BILL OF COSTS



### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04

- 14

- 00694

- CV

Robert Leal and Ramiro Leal

v.

Cuanto Antes Mejor, LLC

(NO. 13

- 02

- 00041

- CVK IN 81ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF KARNES COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

CERTIFIED COPY

MOTION FEE

CERTIFIED COPY

CLERK'S RECORD

INDIGENT

STATEWIDE EFILING FEE

FILING

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51

FEE $6.00

$30.00

$19.00

$312.00

$25.00

$20.00

$100.00

$50.00 PAID

E

- PAID

PAID

PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID MICHAEL FULTON

CYNTHIA SHEPPARD

MICHAEL M FULTON

N/A

CYNTHIA SHEPPERD

CYNTHIA SHEPPARD

CYNTHIA SHEPPERD

CYNTHIA SHEPPARD

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in**  **this cause shall**  **be paid as**  **per the**  **Judgment issued by**  **this Court.** 

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this October 1, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 111 (Thursday, June 8, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36398-36399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14170]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[TN-NASH-T5-2000-01b; FRL-6710-8]


Clean Air Act Proposed Approval of Operating Permit Program 
Revisions; Metropolitan Government of Nashville-Davidson County, 
Tennessee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes approval of revisions to the operating permit 
program of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville-Davidson County 
(TN). In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is 
approving the County's operating permit program as a direct final rule 
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a 
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. An 
explanation for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If 
no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further 
activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct 
final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments will be addressed 
in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties 
interested in commenting should do so at this time.

DATES: Written comments must be received by July 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Address comments to Kim Pierce, Regional Title V Program 
Manager, Operating Source Section, Air & Radiation Technology Branch, 
EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Copies of the 
County's submittals and other supporting documentation relevant to this 
action are available for inspection during normal business hours at 
EPA, Air & Radiation Technology Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30303.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Pierce, EPA, Region 4, at (404) 
562-9124.

[[Page 36399]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct 
final rule which is published in the final rules section of this 
Federal Register.

    Dated: May 19, 2000.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 00-14170 Filed 6-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
---




EXHIBIT 23.1





CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 File Numbers 333-40292 and 333-49090) pertaining to the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan; the 2000 Stock Plan; and the 1999 Stock Option Plan (the Plans) of inSilicon Corporation of our report dated October 16, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of inSilicon Corporation included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30, 2001.





/s/    ERNST &
YOUNG LLP





San Jose, California


December
20, 2001
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Women in Rhode Island Industries: A Study of Hours, Wages, and Working Conditions

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					,	Best, Ethel L. (Ethel Lombard)					 and 	Robinson, Mary V. (Mary Viola). 						*Women in Rhode Island Industries: A Study of Hours, Wages, and Working Conditions : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 21*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1922,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5345,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6830

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES NIBLOCK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (1:02-cr-00568-GBL-1)

Submitted: September 23, 2008 Decided: October 9, 2008

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Niblock, Appellant Pro Se. Dana James Boente, Assistant

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Niblock appeals from the district court’s order

denying his motion to correct a clerical error in his criminal

judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. United States v. Niblock, No. 1:02-cr-00568-GBL-1

(E.D. Va. filed May 5, 2008; entered May 6, 2008). 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
#### § 144.01-30 First-aid kit.

On each manned platform a first-aid kit approved by the Commandant or the U.S. Bureau of Mines shall be provided and kept in the custody of the person in charge.

[CGFR 56-4, 21 FR 903, Feb. 9, 1956, as amended by CGD 73-177R, 40 FR 8176, Feb. 26, 1975]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0497 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RICHARD JAMES SORIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 3 0 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including March 14 , 2022 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

**J M** **K** Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 3 2022

02/03/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0497
#### § 146.1 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart apply to OCS facilities except mobile offshore drilling units.
```

[House Report 111-57]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     111-57

======================================================================

 
   WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON 
                     RULES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

   March 26, 2009.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

    Ms. Matsui, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 289]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 289, by a nonrecord vote, 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 
two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions 
reported from the Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver 
to any resolution reported through the legislative day of March 
30, 2009, providing for consideration or disposition of the 
bill (H.R. 1388) to reauthorize and reform the national service 
laws, an amendment thereto, or a conference report thereon.

                                  

```