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

No. 7507

#### Joan L. Adams v. John R. Adams

January 31, 1977

*Gerald F. Giles,*of Portsmouth, by brief and orally, for the plaintiff.

*Fisher, Parsons, Moran & Temple,*of Dover, and *Ronald B. Willoughby (Mr. Willoughby*orally) for the defendant.

Pee cueiam.

The question in this divorce case is whether the Trial Court *(Mullavey, J.)*abused its discretion with respect to the distribution of property and support.

After a hearing with no stenographic record and with no requests for findings having been made by defendant, the trial court decreed a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences resulting in an irremediable breakdown of the marriage. Custody of a child was decreed to the plaintiff and defendant was ordered to pay $35 per week for support of the child. Defendant was also *44ordered to maintain an existing government life insurance policy with the child as beneficiary. Certain funds in possession of an attorney were ordered deposited in the name of the plaintiff in trust for the child with withdrawals confined to those approved by the court.

Eeal estate consisting of thirty-four acres of land in Milton valued at $13,600 was deemed the sole property of defendant, but it was ordered that upon sale either in whole or in part “the plaintiff shall be paid 25% of the gross proceeds.”

Unlike *Economides v. Economides,*116 N.H. 191, 357 A.2d 871 (1976), the defendant here made no requests for findings. He is therefore in no position to complain that the court made none. Defendant has the burden of showing that the orders were “improper and unfair”. *Id.*at 193, 357 A.2d at 872. In the absence of a transcript, it is usual to presume that the evidence supports the action by the court. *State v. Seeley,*116 N.H. 57, 357 A.2d 870 (1976).

In addition, however, in this case the affidavits show an estimated income of $35 per week for the defendant plus $64 per month on a second mortgage. It appears that defendant’s living expenses are provided by his mother and that after the temporary order he went to Florida and returned for the hearing on the merits. It also may be that the trial court had evidence that defendant was capable of earning more than he was in fact earning. We cannot say that the court abused its discretion with regard to the support order.

Nor can we say that the division of property was unfair. The $10,000 trusteeship for the benefit of the child was not unreasonable considering that the age of the child was four years and the age of the defendant fifty, and the uncertainty of other sources of support. Nor was it unreasonable to require him to pay over to the plaintiff one-fourth of the gross proceeds of the land to the plaintiff who must provide a home for the child and who received no other alimony.

*Exceptions overrules.*
#### § 783.2 Matters discussed in this part.

This part 783 discusses the meaning and application of the exemptions provided in sections 13(a)(14) and 13(b)(6) of the Act. The provisions of section 6(b)(2) of the Act, which relate to the calculation of minimum wages and the hours worked by seamen on American vessels, are also discussed in this part. Other provisions of the Act are discussed only to make clear their relevance to these provisions and are not considered in detail in this part. Interpretations and regulations also published elsewhere in this title deal in some detail with such subjects as the general coverage of the Act (part 776 of this chapter), methods of payment of wages (part 531 of this chapter), hours worked (part 785 of this chapter), recordkeeping requirements (part 516 of this chapter), and qualifications for exempt executive, administrative, and professional employees (part 541 of this chapter). Reference should also be made to subpart G of part 570 of this chapter which contains the official interpretations of the child labor provisions of the Act. Copies of any of these documents may be obtained from any office of the Wage and Hour Division.
§ 230.6 Actions normally requiring an EIS. Actions normally requiring an EIS are: ( a ) Feasibility reports for authorization and construction of major projects;
( b ) Proposed changes in projects which increase size substantially or add additional purposes; and
( c ) Proposed major changes in the operation and/or maintenance of completed projects.
District commanders may consider the use of an environmental assessment (EA) on these types of actions if early studies and coordination show that a particular action is not likely to have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"ADR.gov","provider_url":"https:\/\/adr.gov","title":"Electronic Guide to Federal Procurement ADR","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"MFT8d6b1E6\"><a href=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide\/\">Electronic Guide to Federal Procurement ADR<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide\/embed\/#?secret=MFT8d6b1E6\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Electronic Guide to Federal Procurement ADR” — ADR.gov\" data-secret=\"MFT8d6b1E6\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
FeedbackSite MapContact

HOW CAN WE HELP YOU?
		Search for:
	HomeAbout ADRLegislation and Interagency ADR Working GroupReport for the President on Significant Developments in Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution, January 2017 (PDF)External-Facing Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the PublicConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the Federal WorkforcePrograms and ContactsResources and GuidanceConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Resources for Federal ADR ProgramsInteragency ADR Working Group Resource CenterEventsCoalition of Federal Ombuds
Search for:  Ch.15 – The ASBCA

															Home/ADR Resources and Guidance/Guidance/Ch.15 – The ASBCA Ch.15 – The ASBCAADR2022-02-17T18:01:37-05:00
			
			Ch.15 – The ASBCAThe Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) recorded its first ADR in 1987 and since then has used ADR, voluntarily and jointly requested by the parties, in over 1,800 matters.  The ASBCA uses two basic forms of ADR — binding ADR in the form of a summary proceeding with binding decision and non-binding ADR in the form of mediation.  However, the ASBCA is open to the use of any reasonable ADR method that will increase the likelihood of successful dispute resolution.  In addition, ADR can be used successfully at any stage of the dispute process.  The ASBCA website contains its up-to-date ADR guidance, sample agreements and statistics.
The ASBCA may also participate in off-docket ADR matters not subject to the Board’s Contract Disputes Act jurisdiction when requested to do so pursuant to the Interagency Neutral-Sharing Arrangement or by other federal, state or local agencies and/or private parties.
**LEARN MORE**
ASBCA ADR Guidance
Sample Agreements for use at the ASBCA
ASBCA Statistics Copyright 2022 ADR.gov | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Section 508
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-20627

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN HUGO RODRIGUEZ-TORRES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-98-1

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

April 12, 2001

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Hugo Rodriguez-Torres appeals his sentence following

his guilty-plea conviction for illegally reentering the United

States after having been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). Rodriguez argues that a prior felony

conviction is an element of the offense rather than a sentencing

factor and that it must be alleged in the indictment. Rodriguez

acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve

the issue for possible Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi
No. 00-20627

-2-

v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). Although the Supreme

Court in Apprendi questioned its decision in Almendarez-Torres,

it did not overrule the case. See Apprendi, 120 S.Ct. at 2361-62

& n.15; see also United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th

Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Rodriguez’s

argument, therefore, is foreclosed. 

Rodriguez additionally maintains that if Almendarez-Torres

remains good law after Apprendi, his sentence still must be

vacated because the indictment failed to allege that his prior

conviction occurred before his last deportation, as opposed to

occurring prior to being found in the United States. This

argument also is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, as the Supreme

Court concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which includes the

timing requirement of the aggravated felony, sets forth a

sentencing factor and not a separate criminal offense. 

Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 235. Rodriguez has failed to

demonstrate error, plain or otherwise, in the indictment. See

United States v. Meshak, 225 F.3d 556, 575 (5th Cir. 2000)

(applying plain-error review to sentencing challenge raised for

the first time on appeal), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 834 (2001).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district

court is

AFFIRMED.
1

BECKHAM, LISA

From: BECKHAM, LISA

Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 11:31 AM

To: Steve Burr

Subject: RE: Draft Cover Letter for NSR SIP Supplement

Attachments: 2015-02-03_NSR_Supplement_CoverLetter + R9 suggestions.docx

Thanks Steve – attached are our fairly minor suggestions. If you have any concerns just let me know. 

Since it will only take you a day to turn around the letter, let’s wait a few days to finalize it to make sure we don’t have 

something to add at the eleventh hour. I’ll let you know when we are ready. J

Thank you so much for working with on these issues! 

From: Steve Burr [mailto:Burr.Steven@azdeq.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 10:49 AM 

To: BECKHAM, LISA 

Subject: RE: Draft Cover Letter for NSR SIP Supplement 

I should be able to get you the final version within a day of getting your comments on the letter. I have the materials 

assembled. 

I’ve corrected a couple of errors since I sent the letter to you. I changed the title of the second section to the more 

accurate “Right to Appeal Proposed Final Permits.” And I took out an extraneous “only” in the first sentence of the 

“Retention of Rules Not Replaced in SIP” section. 

From: BECKHAM, LISA [mailto:BECKHAM.LISA@EPA.GOV] 

Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 4:00 PM 

To: Steve Burr 

Subject: Re: Draft Cover Letter for NSR SIP Supplement 

Hi Steve - Just keeping you in the loop - we should be getting back to by COB today or early tomorrow. 

From: Steve Burr <Burr.Steven@azdeq.gov> 

Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2015 1:11 PM 

To: BECKHAM, LISA 

Cc: Eric C. Massey; Marina Mejia 

Subject: Draft Cover Letter for NSR SIP Supplement 

Hi Lisa. 

As we discussed, I’m sending you a draft letter for an NSR SIP supplemental submission in order to make sure that it 

adequately and accurately addresses the issues EPA has raised. I’m also including a revised version of the proposed final 

permit guidance memo that includes a couple of new citations. 

Sorry this is late, but I ended up having back-to-back meetings this morning, including a fairly lengthy discussion of the 

“begin actual construction” definition. 

Steve Burr 
2

SIP Section 

Air Quality Division 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

602-771-4251
#### § 401.82 Reporting mast height.

A vessel, any part of which extends more than 33.5 m above water level, shall not transit any part of the Seaway until precise information concerning the height of the vessel has been furnished to the nearest Seaway station.

(68 Stat. 93-96, 33 U.S.C. 981-990, as amended and secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 13 of sec. 2 of Pub. L. 95-474, 92 Stat. 1471)

[48 FR 20691, May 9, 1983]
**EXHIBIT32.0**

 

**CERTIFICATESPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned, Robert E. Conway, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Array BioPharma Inc. (the “Company”) and R. Michael Carruthers,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do each hereby certify that, to thebest of his knowledge and except as corrected or supplemented in a subsequentperiodic report filed pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as of thedate hereof:

 

1)             The Annual Report on Form 10-K of theCompany for the year ended June 30, 2008, filed on the date hereof withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

 

2)             The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

Theundersigned have executed this Certificate as of August 15, 2008.

 

 
|                       | By:  | /s/ ROBERT E. CONWAY                                               |
|----------------------------|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |      | Robert E. Conway                                                   |
|                       |      | Chief Executive OfficerPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER                 |
|                       |      |                                                               |
|                       |      |                                                               |
| Date: August 15, 2008 |      |                                                               |
|                       |      |                                                               |
|                       | By:  | /s/ R. MICHAEL CARRUTHERS                                          |
|                       |      | R. Michael Carruthers                                              |
|                       |      | Chief Financial OfficerPRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND  ACCOUNTING OFFICER |
|                       |      |                                                               |
|                       |      |                                                               |
| Date: August 15, 2008 |      |                                                               |

----
Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
                            RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Millenium Holding Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Richard Ham, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rules
13a-14 and 15-d14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to
ss.302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

I have reviewed the Report;

Based upon my knowledge, the Report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading;

Based upon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in the Report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company, as of, and for,
the periods presented in the Report;

I and the other certifying officers of the Company:

are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures for the Company; have designed such disclosure controls and
procedures to ensure that material information is made known to us, particularly
during the period in which the Report is being prepared; have evaluated the
effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures within 90 days
of the date of the Report; and have presented in the Report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on the
required evaluation.

I and the other certifying officers have disclosed to the Company's auditors and
to the audit committee of the board of directors (or persons fulfilling the
equivalent function):

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls (a
pre-existing term relating to internal controls regarding financial reporting)
which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the Company's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and any fraud, whether or not
material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the Company's internal controls.

I and the other certifying officers have indicated in the Report whether or not
there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of their
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

/s/Richard Ham
-----------------------
Richard Ham
Chief Financial Officer
April 7, 2003
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"ADR.gov","provider_url":"https:\/\/adr.gov","title":"Ch.11 – ODRA Protests","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"rVvFxtArPP\"><a href=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/ch11\/\">Ch.11 – ODRA Protests<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/ch11\/embed\/#?secret=rVvFxtArPP\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Ch.11 – ODRA Protests” — ADR.gov\" data-secret=\"rVvFxtArPP\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
§ 386.10 Threshold criteria. ( a ) To be eligible to receive Federal credit assistance under this part, a project shall meet the following threshold criteria: ( 1 ) The project and prospective borrower shall be creditworthy.
( 2 ) A project shall have eligible project costs that are reasonably anticipated to equal or exceed $20 million.
( 3 ) A Federal credit instrument: ( i ) Shall be repayable, in whole or in part, from State or local taxes, user fees, or other dedicated revenue sources that also secure the senior project obligations of the project;
( ii ) Shall include a rate covenant, coverage requirement, or similar security feature supporting the project obligations; and
( iii ) May have a lien on revenues subject to any lien securing project obligations.
( 4 ) In the case of a project that is undertaken by an entity that is not a State or local government or an agency or instrumentality of a State or local government, or a Tribal government or consortium of Tribal governments, the project that the entity is undertaking shall be publicly sponsored.
( 5 ) The prospective borrower shall have developed an operations and maintenance plan that identifies adequate revenues to operate, maintain, and repair the project during its useful life. If the borrower is a State infrastructure financing authority, it shall have ensured and will ensure that its borrowers have a plan for the eligible projects they are undertaking that identifies adequate revenues to operate, maintain and repair such projects during the useful life of such projects. The requirement in this paragraph (a)(5) may be met through the development of a written plan or a financial model.
( b ) With respect to paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the Secretary may accept general obligation pledges or general corporate promissory pledges and will determine the acceptability of other pledges and forms of collateral as dedicated revenue sources on a case-by-case basis. The Secretary shall not accept a pledge of Federal funds, regardless of source, as security for the Federal credit instrument.
( c ) The provision at 33 U.S.C. 3907(c) provides that nothing in section 3907(c) (which includes eligibility requirements and selection criteria for projects and entities receiving WIFIA assistance) is intended to supersede the applicability of other requirements of Federal law, including regulations.