alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Chancery.

*Case*16.

#### Whitsell *vs*Whitsell.

Error to the Hopkins Circuit.

*Alimony. Maintenance. Evidence.*

Case stated.

On a motion to make an allowance to the wife for her support during the pendency of a suit for alimony, the only proper enquiry is, into the circumstances of the husband. It is the Imperative duty of the Court to make a provision, if the wife is not suitably provided, unless the wife be living in adultery; evidence to other points will not, therefore, be admissible on such motion.

*December*13.

Judge Simpson

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Huldaii Whitsem, having instituted a suit in chancery against her husband, for alimony, gave him notice of the time of an intended application by hpr to the Court, for an order on him to pay her a sum sufficient for her support and maintnance for one year. On the trial of the motion, after proof of the destitute condition of the complainant, and that her husband had made no suitable provision for her, and of the amount and value of his estate, the defendant offered to read the depositions of various individuals, in relation to her right to alimony. The evidence was rejected by the Court, and an order made for an allowance to the complainant, of one hundred dollars, for one year. To that order this writ of error, with supersedeas, is prosecuted ; and the only question is, did the Court err in rejecting the evidence offered by the defendant.

The act of 1831, on this subject, (1 *Stat.*Law, 126,) makes it the duty of the Court, without any regard to the merits of the controversy, to provide a support for the wife during its pendency. This duty is imperative on the Court, and for its discharge, admits an inquiry alone in relation to the amount of the' husband’s estate, and whether or not the wife is suitably provided for by him. The-Court therefore did not err in rejecting the evidence offered by the defendant. On the trial .of a motion of this kind, the defendant may show that he has made a suitable provision for his wife. There is but one other ground upon which, under the statute, he can rely, to defeat the motion: that is, that the wife is living in adultery. No evidence was offered to establish this defence. The rejected evidence was intended to show that the separation between her and her hus*51band, was the result of her ungovernable temper.- This evidence was clearly inadmissible.-

*Arnold*for plaintiff.

■N

Wherefore, the order is affirmed.
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-11-023]

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: 

United States International Trade Commission.

# TIME AND DATE: 

August 30, 2011 at 11 a.m.

# PLACE: 

Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# STATUS: 

Open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 731-TA-825 and 826 (Second Review) (Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan). The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determinations and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before September 13, 2011.

5. Outstanding action jackets: none.

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: August 17, 2011.

William R. Bishop,

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.

[FR Doc. 2011-21412 Filed 8-17-11; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
[Civ. No. 11345.

Second Appellate District, Division Two.

May 12, 1937.]

#### FRED HOFFMAN et al., Appellants, v. CITIZENS STATE BANK OF LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA (a Corporation ), Respondent.

Adolph B. Rosenfield and Hanna & Morton for Appellants.

Frank M. Linnell for Respondent.

*8WOOD, J.

—Plaintiffs recovered judgment against defendant bank in the sum of $2,863.08, together with interest thereon. They appeal from this judgment, contending that it should have been in a larger amount. An appeal is also taken from an order denying their motion to vacate the judgment.

Plaintiff Fred Hoffman and others were the owners of certain real property in the city of Long Beach and as such owners entered into a lease on March 20, 1923, with 0. Jensen and others whereby it was provided that a building should be erected on the property, the doors for which were to be furnished and installed by the lessees. Thereafter plaintiff Fred Hoffman became the owner of the premises by virtue of a sale in partition proceedings and a lease thereof was made by him with defendant bank, which by its terms was to expire March 31, 1933. The lease provided that the lessee might remove all personal property and fixtures placed by the lessee upon the premises and in so doing leave the premises in first-class condition. The action was commenced to recover the amount of rental claimed to be unpaid according to the contract and the amount of damages claimed to have been sustained by reason of the removal of two vault doors and the failure of defendant to leave the premises in proper condition.

Plaintiffs complain of the action of the court in striking out the testimony of Fred Hoffman concerning the conversation he had had with 0. Jensen concerning the ownership of a vault door. The contract was later reduced to writing and the conversations were merged in it. The ruling of the court was correct.

Plaintiffs criticize various rulings of the trial court, but they do not present to this court anything which shows that the rulings of the court were erroneous. Neither do they point out wherein they have been prejudiced by the rulings of the court. It is not the duty of a reviewing court to search through the record for the purpose of discovering wherein the action of the trial court in the respect complained of involved error prejudicial to the plaintiffs.

The judgment and order are affirmed.

Grail, P. J., and McComb, J., concurred.

*9A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on June 2, 1937, and an application by appellants to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on July 9, 1937.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O S . A P
- 7 6 , 7 2 2 & A P
- 7 6 , 7 2 3

E X P A R T E W A R D E L L H U N T E R , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N S F O R W R I T S O F H A B E A S C O R P U S

C A U S E N O S . 1 1 4
- 1 6 8 9
- 0 8 & 1 1 4
- 0 3 1 5
- 0 9 I N T H E 1 1 4 D I S T R I C T C O U R T F R O M S M I T H C O U N T Y

T H

P e r c u r i a m . O P I N I O N
P u rsuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Proced u re , t h e cler k of the trial co u rt t ra n s m i tted to this Court these applications for writs of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was twice convicted of assault with bodily injury to a family member and sentenc ed to eig ht y ear s’ imprisonment for eac h

cause . Applicant contends that he was denied his rig ht to appea l. His counsel has submitt ed an aff idavit to the trial court stating that he was appointed to repr esent Applicant on appea l, but was not timely notified of t hat appointm ent and there fore wa s u n ab l e to file a timely notice of appea l. Ex2

parte Riley , 193 S.W .3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The trial court has deter

mined that Applicant was denied his rig ht to appea l these judgme nts. We find that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file out-of-time appea ls of the judgme nts of convictions in Cause Nos. 114-1689-08 & 114-0315-09 from the 114 J udicial District C o u rt of t h
Smit h County

. Applicant is ordere d returne d to that time at which he may g ive a written notice of
appea l so that he may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaning ful appea l. Wit hin ten day s of the issuance of this opinion, the trial court shal l d et ermine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall immediat ely appoint an attorney to repr esent Applicant on direc t appea l. All time limit s shall be calc ulated as if the sentenc e had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosec ute an appea l, he must take aff irmative steps to file a written notice of appe al in the trial cour t within 30 day s after

the mandate of this Court issues.

Deliver ed: Fe bruar

y 8, 2012 Do Not Publish
ACL Protection and Advocacy: Traumatic Brain Injury Awards for the States/Territories

FY 2019 Annual Allocation

12/28/2018

State/Territory

Protection and 

Advocacy: 

Traumatic Brain 

Injury (PATBI)

Alabama $55,622

Alaska $50,000

Arizona $71,862

Arkansas $50,000

California $318,471

Colorado $61,176

Connecticut $50,000

Delaware $50,000

District of Columbia $50,000

Florida $177,784

Georgia $97,744

Hawaii $50,000

Idaho $50,000

Illinois $115,736

Indiana $69,212

Iowa $50,000

Kansas $50,000

Kentucky $52,433

Louisiana $54,179

Maine $50,000

Maryland $64,551

Massachusetts $70,676

Michigan $94,202

Minnesota $60,945

Mississippi $50,000

Missouri $65,017

Montana $50,000

Nebraska $50,000

Nevada $50,000

New Hampshire $50,000

New Jersey $86,947

New Mexico $50,000

New York $169,177

North Carolina $96,562

North Dakota $50,000

Ohio $107,066

Oklahoma $50,000

Oregon $50,072

Pennsylvania $115,763

Rhode Island $50,000

South Carolina $56,757

South Dakota $50,000

Tennessee $69,585

Texas $233,294

Utah $50,000

Vermont $50,000

Virginia $82,886

Washington $74,816

West Virginia $50,000

Wisconsin $62,604

Wyoming $50,000

American Samoa $20,000

Guam $20,000

Northern Mariana Islands $20,000

Puerto Rico $50,000

Virgin Islands $20,000

Native American Protection and Advocacy Inc. $20,000

TOTAL $3,985,139
1 

U.S. Department of Justice 

National Security Division 

Counterintelligence and Export Control Section Washington, D.C. 20530

 October 5, 2022 

By ECF and Courtesy Copy 

Judge Raymond J. Dearie 

United States District Court 

 Eastern District of New York 

225 Cadman Plaza East 

Brooklyn, NY 11202 

Re: Donald J. Trump v. United States of America, Case No. 22-81294-CIV-CANNON – 

Government Update on Selection and Contract with Document-Review Vendors

 

Dear Judge Dearie: 

Consistent with Judge Cannon’s order (ECF 125, at 3), the parties entered contracts with thirdparty vendors to scan, process, host, and provide a review platform for the Seized Materials. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

 JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ 

 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

 MATTHEW G. OLSEN 

 Assistant Attorney General 

 By: /s/ 

 JAY I. BRATT 

 Chief 

 JULIE EDELSTEIN 

 Deputy Chief 

 STEPHEN MARZEN 

 Trial Attorney 

 Counterintelligence and Export Control Section 

 National Security Division 

 Department of Justice 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 137 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 1 of 2
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 5, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing 

document is being served this day on all counsel of record via transmission of Notices of 

Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. 

/s/ Julie A. Edelstein 

Julie A. Edelstein 

Deputy Chief 

Counterintelligence and Export Control Section 

National Security Division 

United States Department of Justice 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20530 

Special Bar # A5502949 

Tel.: +1.202.233.0986 

Email: julie.a.edelstein@usdoj.gov 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 137 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 117.927 Coosaw River (Whale Branch).

The draw of the Seaboard System Railroad bridge, mile 5.3 at Seabrook, and the draw of the US21 bridge, mile 7.0 at Beaufort, shall open on signal from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Friday if at least 24 hours notice is given. At all other times, the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 108 (Monday, June 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13914]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-1262-003]


Monongahela Power Company, Potomac Edison Company, West Penn 
Power Company (Allegheny Power); Notice of Filing

May 30, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 15, 2000, Monongahela Power Company, 
Potomac Edison Company and West Penn Power Company, doing business as 
Allegheny Power tendered for filing revisions to First Revised Sheet 
Nos. 215 through 223 filed with the Commission.
    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, NE., 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 9, 2000. Protest 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. 00-13914 Filed 6-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
### EGU GHG NSPS **- Submittal #5** 

**RobertJ Wayland** to: Frey, Nathan J. C : Cortney_Higgins, Kevin Culligan, Nick Hutson, fellner.christian, johnson.mary

From: RobertJ W ayland/RTP/USEPA/US To: "Frey, Nathan J." <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov> Cc: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov, Kevin Culligan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nick Hutson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, fellner.christian@epa.gov,

johnson.mary@epa.gov Nathan - Attached are three (3) documents for yo ur review. (1) W ritten responses to the interagency questions submitted earlier in January; (2) Assessment of natural gas prices sensitivities; and, (3) Updated com bined cycle turbine information. Please let Kevin or me know if you have any questions. thanx! bob Robert J. W ayland, Ph.D. Leader, Energy Strategies Group U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division Mail Code D243 - 01 RTP, NC 27711 Phone: (919) 541 - 1045 Cell: (919) 306 -2290 Fax: (919) 541 - 5450

e- ma il: wayland.robertj@epa.gov

********************************************************* DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt *********************************************************

OM B response 2 - 1 - final.doc

Sensitivity Summary NSPS_2 - 1 - 12.pptx 2010 new combined cycle data.xlsx
# B-9 BC Rank sorted
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60798

Summary Calendar

David Enriquez-Acuapa, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A205 006 035

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

David Enriquez-Acuapa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing his 

appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation 

of removal. Enriquez-Acuapa argues that the BIA failed to address his 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 6, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60798 Document: 00516269062 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2022
No. 20-60798

2

argument regarding whether the best interests of the child must be the 

primary factor considered in determining whether a petitioner has 

demonstrated an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a minor 

relative. Specifically, he claims that pursuant to Article 3 of the Convention 

on the Rights of the Child, the best interests of the child must be considered 

in determining whether a petitioner is entitled to cancellation of removal and 

that his position is supported by language in two Supreme Court cases.

Despite Enriquez-Acuapa’s assertion to the contrary, the BIA 

considered and rejected his arguments in finding that unratified treaties and 

customary international law cannot create remedies beyond those provided 

by Congress and that it lacked jurisdiction to the extent that he argued that 

the Convention on the Rights of the Child affected the validity of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act. Moreover, the Convention on the Rights 

of the Child has not been ratified by the United States and therefore does not 

create a binding obligation. See Martinez-Lopez v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 500, 502 

(5th Cir. 2006). Finally, because Enriquez-Acuapa does not challenge the 

determination that he failed to demonstrate an undue hardship to his 

qualifying relatives, he has abandoned any challenge to that determination. 

See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). EnriquezAcuapa does not show that the evidence compels a contrary result. See 

Guerrero Trejo v. Garland, 3 F.4th 760, 744 (5th Cir. 2021).

The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 20-60798 Document: 00516269062 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2022
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 90 

Commending students who participated in the United States Senate Youth 

Program between 1962 and 2007. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2007 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. THOMAS, and Mr. 

COCHRAN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Commending students who participated in the United States 

Senate Youth Program between 1962 and 2007. 

Whereas the students who have participated in the United 

States Senate Youth Program (referred to in this preamble as the ‘‘Senate Youth Program’’) over the past 45 

years were chosen for their exceptional merit and interest 

in the political process; 

Whereas the students demonstrated outstanding leadership 

abilities and a strong commitment to community service 

and have ranked academically in the top 1 percent of 

their States; 

Whereas the Senate Youth Program alumni have continued 

to achieve unparalleled educational and professional sucmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•SRES 90 ATS 

cess and have demonstrated a strong commitment to public service on the local, State, national, and global levels; 

Whereas the Senate Youth Program alumni have demonstrated excellent qualities of citizenship and have contributed to the Nation’s constitutional democracy, both 

professionally and in volunteer capacities, and have made 

an indelible impression on their communities; 

Whereas each State department of education has selected 

outstanding participants for the Senate Youth Program; 

Whereas the Department of Defense, Department of State, 

and other Federal departments, as well as Congress, have 

offered support and provided top level speakers who have 

inspired and educated the students in the Senate Youth 

Program; and 

Whereas the directors of the William Randolph Hearst Foundation have continually made the Senate Youth Program 

available for outstanding young students and exposed 

them to the varied aspects of public service: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate congratulates, honors, and 

2 pays tribute to the more than 4,500 exemplary students 

3 who have been selected, on their merit, to participate in 

4 the United States Senate Youth Program between 1962 

5 and 2007. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
#### § 146.402 Definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:

*Arrives on the OCS* means when a vessel enters any OCS block area to commence operations for which it has submitted a Notice of Arrival under § 146.405(b)(2).

*OCS block area* means the names given by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, (BOEM) to define the OCS areas used to facilitate management or leasing on the OCS.

[USCG-2008-1088, 76 FR 2262, Jan. 13, 2011, as amended by USCG-2013-0797, 79 FR 36405, June 27, 2014]
#### Davis *v.*West & Company.

Submitted July 18, 1906.

Decided January 18, 1907.

Certiorari. Before Judge Wriglit. Floyd superior court. October 3, 1905.

*G. E. Davis*and *W.*ZJ- *Ennis,*for plaintiff in error.

*M. B. Eubanks,*contra.

Beck, J.

1. In a suit against an indorser on a bill of exchange, which had been discounted for him by W. J. West & Co., evidence that said West & Co. “were in the money-lending business, discounting notes, bills, etc.,” but did not receive deposits; that, “they had out a sign ‘W. J. West & Co., Bankers,’ and advertised as bankers, but were not chartered,” and that “the company was composed of W. J. West alone,” there being no evidence that said West & Co. performed any of the other functions of a bank than that indicated above, fails to show that West & Co. were a bank or banker’s office, within the meaning of the Civil Code, § 3688, which provides that “it shall not be necessai'y to protest in order to bind indorsers, except in the following cases, to wit: 1. When a paper is made payable on its face at a bank or banker’s office. 2. When it is discounted at a bank or banker’s office. 3. When it is left at a, bank or banker’s office for collection.” Way *v.*Butterworth, 106 Mass. 75; 108 Mass. 509; People *v.*Brewster, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 498.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O J., absent.*
§ 154.1120 Operating restrictions and interim operating authorization. ( a ) The owner or operator of a TAPAA facility may not operate in Prince William Sound, Alaska, unless the requirements of this subpart as well as § 154.1025 have been met. The owner or operator of a TAPAA facility shall certify to the COTP that he or she has provided, through an oil spill removal organization required by § 154.1125, the necessary response resources to remove, to the maximum extend practicable, a worst case discharge or a discharge of 200,000 barrels of oil, whichever is grater, in Prince William Sound.
( b ) Coast Guard approval of a TAPAA facility response plan is effective only so long as the appropriate Regional Citizens Advisory Council(s) is funded pursuant to the requirements of section 5002(k) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-380; 104 Stat. 484, 550).