alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John, James, &c., (of color,) *vs*Walker, Executor of Bates.

Error to the Madison Circuit.

Chancery.

Case■ 130.

*J.*4* *W. L. Iiarlan and Runyan*for plaintiffs; *Turner*for defendants.

*Emancipation. Parties.*

A suit lor1 freedom cannot- be sustained against any person- but one rvho, at'the institution thereof, has the-custody, or who claims the-ownership of the-person claiming-the right to freedom..

September 27.

Judge Siufsoh

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This suit in chancery was brought by the plaintiffs in error, asserting their right to freedom under the last will and testament of John Bates, deceased, against his executors.

It appears that although the defendant, Walker, either as executor or devisee under the will, had the possession of the complainants and retained them in slavery after the death of Bates, yet they had been sold by him, placed in the possession of the purchaser, and removed out of this State, about two years previous to the institution of the present suit; and that none of the defendants in the suit, had the possession of the complainants, or any of them, or any right to them, since that period.

Can this suit be maintained under these circumstances? We are clearly of opinion it cannot. To effect the object of the suit, it should be brought against the person claiming ownership, or having the complainants in custody at the time of its institution. In a suit against a previous owner, the Court could render no decree affecting the rights of the present proprietor, or releasing the complainants from the bondage in which they are held. Such a suit, being wholly ineffectual in its results, not enabling the Court to grant the relief sought, nor to adjudicate upon the rights of the complainants to freedom, cannot be maintained.

Wherefore, the decree of the Court dismissing the complainants’ bill without prejudice, is affirmed.
OLDERAMERICANS

MONTHA G I N G  U N B O U N D :  M AY  2023
# ToC

# Other Activities by State

&"Arial Rounded MT Bold,Bold"&14Table A-10: Other Ombudsman Activities for FY 2011	

&"Arial Narrow,Regular"Table A-10: p. &P	

# Other Activities by Region

&"Arial Rounded MT Bold,Bold"&14Table A-10: Other Ombudsman Activities by Region for FY 2011	

&"Arial Narrow,Regular"Table A-10: p. &P
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                           iPrint Technologies, Inc.
                               3073 Corvin Drive
                             Santa Clara, CA 95051



March 28, 2002

United States Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W. Judiciary Plaza
Washington, D.C. 20549


Ladies and Gentlemen:

       We have received a letter of representation from Arthur Andersen LLP
stating that their audit of the financial statements contained in iPrint
Technologies, Inc.'s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001, of which
this Exhibit 99.1 is a part, was subject to their quality control system for the
U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there
was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working on the audit and
availability of national office consultation. Availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen LLP is not relevant to this audit.


Sincerely,


/s/ DAVID SELTZER
-----------------
David Seltzer
Chief Financial Officer
iPrint Technologies
EXHIBIT 32



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 Big Sky Energy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce Gaston, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  August 26, 2005

By: /s/ Bruce Gaston

Name:  Bruce Gaston

Title:   Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 21

- 00209

- CR

TODD ORLANDO MIDDLETON , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 77th District Court

Limestone County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14554

- A

ABATEMENT ORDER

On August 23, 2021, a ttorney Justin Reed, on behalf of Appellant Todd Orlando Middleton, filed with the trial court clerk a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered against Middleton in the underlying case. We subsequently received a copy of the notice of appeal and filed it in the appeal bearing the number and style shown above.Middleton v. State Page 2 We were then notified that on September 21, 2021 , a ttorney Logan Sawyer, on behalf of Middleton, filed with the trial court clerk an “Appearance of Counsel for Limited Purpose and Defendant’s Withdrawal of Appeal.”

On November 10, 2021 , the Clerk of this Court sent a letter to both R eed and Sawyer , informing them that the Court had been notified about the filing with the trial

court clerk of the “Appearance of Counsel for Limited Purpose and Defendant’s Withdrawal of Appeal .” The November 10 letter pointed out that Sawyer had not fil ed a notice of appearance of counsel with th is Court and that no motion to dismiss th is appeal

had been filed with th is Court

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 6.2, 42.2(a). The November 10 letter

further stated: “If Middleton no longer wants to continue with this appeal, Middleton’s counsel should file with this Court a motion to dismiss complying with Rule 42.2(a).”

On November 22, 2021 , Sawyer filed with the Clerk of this Court “Defendant’s

Motion to D ismiss Appeal,” which stat ed that Sawyer had spoken with Middleton and that Middleton had instructed Sawyer that Middleton no longer desires to pursue this appeal. Middleton, however, had not personally sign ed the motion. See id. R. 42.2(a).

We therefore issued an order on November 30, 2021, denying Middleton’s motion to dismiss this appeal because the motion did not comply with Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). T he order nevertheless stated: “ If, however, Appellant files a motion to dismiss this app eal that complies with Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), specifically including Appellant’s signature in addition to his counsel’s, the Court will rule on the motion as appropriate.”Middleton v. State Page 3 To date, w e have received no further correspondence from Middleton or his

counsel . Accordingly, we abate this cause to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether Middleton wants to continue with this appeal. The trial court shall conduct the hearing within 21 days from th e date of this Order. The trial court clerk and court reporter shall file supplemental records within 35 days

after the date of this Order.

In the meantime , if Middleton files a motion to dismiss this appeal that complies with Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 2.2(a), specifically including Middleton’s signature in addition to his counsel’s, we will reinstate this appeal and rule on the motion as appropriate.

PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson , and Justice Smith Order issued and filed January 24, 2022 RWR
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 117.17 Signalling for contiguous drawbridges.

When a vessel must past two or more drawbridges close together, the opening signal is given for the first bridge. After acknowledgment from the first bridge that it will promptly open, the opening signal is given for the second bridge, and so on until all bridges that the vessel must pass have been given the opening signal and have acknowledged that they will open promptly.
§ 155.815 Tank vessel integrity. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a tank vessel underway or at anchor must have all closure mechanisms on the following openings properly closed: ( 1 ) Expansion trunk hatches;
( 2 ) Ullage openings;
( 3 ) Sounding ports;
( 4 ) Tank cleaning openings; and
( 5 ) Any other tank vessel openings that maintain the seaworthy condition of the tank vessel and prevent the inadvertent release of oil or hazardous material in the event of a tank vessel accident.
( b ) No person may open any of the closure mechanisms in paragraph (a) of this section while the tank vessel is underway or at anchor except when authorized and supervised by a licensed or credentialed officer or the tankerman required by 46 CFR 31.15-5(a).
[CGD 75-124, 45 FR 7175, Jan. 31, 1980, as amended by CGD 86-034, 55 FR 36255, Sept. 4, 1990; USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11212, Mar. 16, 2009]
```

[111th Congress Public Law 6]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ006.111]
Public Law 111-6
111th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2009, and for 
                                 other 
           purposes. <<NOTE: Mar. 6, 2009 -  [H.J. Res. 38]>> 

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Continuing 
Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (division A of Public Law 110-
329) <<NOTE: 122 Stat. 3575.>> is amended by striking the date specified 
in section 106(3) and inserting ``March 11, 2009''.

    Approved March 6, 2009.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 38:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
            Mar. 6, considered and passed House and Senate.

                                  <all>
```
§ 164.25 Tests before entering or getting underway. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section no person may cause a vessel to enter into or get underway on the navigable waters of the United States unless no more than 12 hours before entering or getting underway, the following equipment has been tested: ( 1 ) Primary and secondary steering gear. The test procedure includes a visual inspection of the steering gear and its connecting linkage, and, where applicable, the operation of the following: ( i ) Each remote steering gear control system.
( ii ) Each steering position located on the navigating bridge.
( iii ) The main steering gear from the alternative power supply, if installed.
( iv ) Each rudder angle indicator in relation to the actual position of the rudder.
( v ) Each remote steering gear control system power failure alarm.
( vi ) Each remote steering gear power unit failure alarm.
( vii ) The full movement of the rudder to the required capabilities of the steering gear.
( 2 ) All internal vessel control communications and vessel control alarms.
( 3 ) Standby or emergency generator, for as long as necessary to show proper functioning, including steady state temperature and pressure readings.
( 4 ) Storage batteries for emergency lighting and power systems in vessel control and propulsion machinery spaces.
( 5 ) Main propulsion machinery, ahead and astern.
( b ) Vessels navigating on the Great Lakes and their connecting and tributary waters, having once completed the test requirements of this subpart, are considered to remain in compliance until arriving at the next port of call on the Great Lakes.
( c ) Vessels entering the Great Lakes from the St. Lawrence Seaway are considered to be in compliance with this sub-part if the required tests are conducted preparatory to or during the passage of the St. Lawrence Seaway or within one hour of passing Wolfe Island.
( d ) No vessel may enter, or be operated on the navigable waters of the United States unless the emergency steering drill described below has been conducted within 48 hours prior to entry and logged in the vessel logbook, unless the drill is conducted and logged on a regular basis at least once every three months. This drill must include at a minimum the following: ( 1 ) Operation of the main steering gear from within the steering gear compartment.
( 2 ) Operation of the means of communications between the navigating bridge and the steering compartment.
( 3 ) Operation of the alternative power supply for the steering gear if the vessel is so equipped.
(46 U.S.C. Chapter 700; 49 CFR 1.46(n)(4))
[CGD 77-183, 45 FR 18925, Mar. 24, 1980, as amended by CGD 83-004, 49 FR 43466, Oct. 29, 1984; USCG-2020-0304, 85 FR 58280, Sept. 18, 2020]
Submitted on record and briefs September 11, 1991,

affirmed September 9, 1992

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*JULIE ANN DANIEL, *Appellant.*

(90P-3058; CA A68475)

836 P2d 1366

Joseph E. Penna, P.G., Monmouth, filed the brief for appellant.

Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Robert M. Atkinson, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and De Muniz, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*178PER CURIAM

Defendant pled guilty to manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm. ORS 163.118(1)(a); ORS 161.610. She challenges the part of her sentence that requires her to repay $5,000 for court-appointed attorney fees. We affirm.

Defendant argues that the court did not inquire into her financial resources or her present or future ability to pay attorney fees, as required by ORS 161.665(3).1 The state contends that defendant did not object and cannot, therefore, raise the issue on appeal.

Under ORS 161.665(1),(2), the court was authorized to impose payment of court appointed attorney fees as part of costs. On its face, defendant’s sentence is within that authority and any error is not “apparent on the face of the record.” ORAP 5.45(2); *see State v. Brown,*310 Or 347, 800 P2d 259 (1990). Defendant did not object to the trial court’s failure to comply with ORS 161.665(3), and we decline to address her argument for the first time on appeal.

Affirmed.

1

 ORS *161.665(3)*provides:

> “The court shall not sentence a defendant to pay costs unless the defendant is or may be able to pay them. In determining the amount and method of payment of costs, the court shall take account of the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that payment of costs will impose."
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                              51
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,034
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,051
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,774
<PP&E>                                          13,994
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,787
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,996
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,830
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              766
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,996
<SALES>                                         13,549
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,549
<CGS>                                           10,715
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,715
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     7
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 436
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    166
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       166
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification by Nick Heyes
pursuant to
18 U.S.C Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for
the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. [section] 1350, I, the undersigned
Chief Financial Officer of Inforte Corp. (the Company), hereby certify, based
on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|               |  |     | Inforte Corp.           | 
|-------------- |  | --- | ----------------------- | 
|               |  |     |                         | 
|               |  | By: | /s/ Nick Heyes          | 
|               |  |     |                         | 
|March 12, 2004 |  |     | Nick Heyes,             | 
|               |  |     | Chief Financial Officer | 

70

---

---
EXHIBIT 4.2



                             AMENDED PROMISSORY NOTE




$1,666,000                                San Francisco, California
                                          November 6, 2003



The undersigned promises to pay $1,666,000 to the order of:

Knight Fuller, Inc.
150 Post Street, Suite 405
San Francisco, CA 94108

With interest on the outstanding balance thereon at the rate of eight percent
(8%) per annum from November 6, 2003 ("Interest Start Date") until paid, payable
in installments of interest in the amount of $11,106.66 per month. Interest
shall be paid 6th day of each month, beginning on December 6, 2003 and
continuing on the same day each month thereafter.

Borrower shall pay to the Note Holder a late charge of 10% of any payment
received by the Note Holder within 3 days after payment is due.

This Note is payable on demand.




Borrower:

/s/ WILLIAM G. KNUFF, III
-----------------------------
William G. Knuff, III
Co-Chief Executive Officer, for
Sutter Holding Company, Inc.
§ 99.515 Audit working papers. ( a ) *Retention of working papers.* The auditor shall retain working papers and reports for a minimum of three years after the date of issuance of the auditor's report(s) to the auditee, unless the auditor is notified in writing by the cognizant agency for audit, oversight agency for audit, or pass-through entity to extend the retention period. When the auditor is aware that the Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, or auditee is contesting an audit finding, the auditor shall contact the parties contesting the audit finding for guidance prior to destruction of the working papers and reports.
( b ) *Access to working papers.* Audit working papers shall be made available upon request to the cognizant or oversight agency for audit or its designee, a Federal agency providing direct or indirect funding, or GAO at the completion of the audit, as part of a quality review, to resolve audit findings, or to carry out oversight responsibilities consistent with the purposes of this part. Access to working papers includes the right of Federal agencies to obtain copies of working papers, as is reasonable and necessary.
FAA Home
Regulations & Policies
Advisory Circulars (ACs)

# AC 150/5300-18A - General Guidance and Specifications for Submission of Aeronautical Surveys to NGS: Field Data Collection and Geographic Information System (GIS) Standards (Cancelled)

- ShareShare
- 

- Facebook					Share on Facebook
- Twitter					Tweet on Twitter

## Document Information

- Number
- 150/5300-18A
- Title
- General Guidance and Specifications for Submission of Aeronautical Surveys to NGS: Field Data Collection and Geographic Information System   (GIS) Standards
- Date cancelled
- 2008-05-08
- Cancelled by
- 150/5300-18B
- Date issued
- 2007-09-15
- Office of Primary Responsibility
- AAS-100, Office of Airport Safety & Standards - Airport Engineering Division 
- Description
-  	Provides the specifications for the collection of airport survey data through field and office methodologies in support of aeronautical information and airport engineering surveys. It also explains how to submit data to the FAA, which will forward the data to the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) for quality control purposes. The primary purpose of these general guidelines and specifications is to list the requirements for aeronautical surveys conducted at airports in support of the FAA Airport Surveying–GIS Program.	Because of the size of this document, it is available as one large file (see Complete) or as several smaller files (see Parts 1-4). 
- Content
-  This document's content is unavailable. 

## View All

      - Current ACs
      - Cancelled ACs
      - Series 150 ACs
      - Draft Series 150 ACs

## Export All

      - Current ACs  (CSV)
      - Cancelled ACs  (CSV)

## Contact Information

      - Advisory Circulars Administrator
      - Other Points of Contact  (MS Excel)
§ 137.35 Inquiries by an environmental professional. ( a ) Inquiries by an environmental professional must be conducted either by the environmental professional or by a person under the supervision or responsible charge of an environmental professional.
( b ) The inquiry of the environmental professional must include the requirements in §§ 137.45 (interviews with past and present owners), 137.50 (reviews of historical sources), 137.60 (reviews of government records), 137.65 (visual inspections), 137.80 (commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information) and 137.85 (degree of obviousness of the presence or likely presence of oil). In addition, the inquiry should take into account information provided to the environmental professional by the person specified in § 137.1(a) conducting the additional inquiries under § 137.40.
( c ) The results of the inquiry by an environmental professional must be documented in a written report that, at a minimum, includes the following: ( 1 ) An opinion as to whether the inquiry has identified conditions indicative of the presence or likely presence of oil at the facility and the real property on which the facility is located.
( 2 ) An identification of data gaps in the information developed as part of the inquiry that affect the ability of the environmental professional to identify conditions indicative of the presence or likely presence of oil at the facility and the real property on which the facility is located. The report must also indicate whether the gaps prevented the environmental professional from reaching an opinion regarding the identification of conditions indicative of the presence or likely presence of oil.
( 3 ) The qualifications of the environmental professional.
( 4 ) An opinion regarding whether additional appropriate investigation is necessary.
( d ) The environmental professional must place the following statements in the written document identified in paragraph (c) of this section and sign the document: “[I, We] declare that, to the best of [my, our] professional knowledge, [I, we] meet the requirements under 33 CFR 137.25 for an environmental professional.” and “[I, We] have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess the nature, history, and setting of a facility and the real property on which it is located. [I, We] have developed and conducted all appropriate inquiries according to the standards and practices in 33 CFR part 137.”