alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Keene District Court

No. 7701

#### Katharine Sullivan v. David Ringland

July 11, 1977

*597Olson, *McMahon & Rogers,*of Keene *(Mr. Lewis A. McMahon*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Faulkner, Plant, Hanna, Zimmerman & Freund, of Keene,*and *Joseph W. Worthen, II (Mr. Worthen, II*orally) for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

Katharine Sullivan, the plaintiff, seeks to replevy a dog (Gun Thunderhill Sully) in the possession of David Ringland, the defendant. A hearing was held in district court, but no transcript thereof was made. The District Court *(Richard J. Talbot,*Special Justice) denied replevin, and plaintiff’s exceptions have been reserved and transferred.

The outlines of the dispute are clear enough. Plaintiff purchased Gun in early 1974, apparently as a birthday present for her then husband. Several months thereafter, Gun was registered in the names of plaintiff and her husband. Husband and wife separated and later divorced; the husband remained in the house with Gun and planned to take care of the dog until plaintiff had relocated. These plans were soon changed; one month after the separation, the husband made a gift of Gun to the defendant, thereby undoubtedly delighting defendant’s young son (Kerry). When plaintiff learned of the gift, she instituted this action.

The district court found that at the time of the gift the husband and wife owned Gun jointly. In the absence of a transcript of the proceedings, we are not in a position to question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting this finding. *Merchants Nat’l Bank v. Adams,*114 N.H. 46, 314 A.2d 664 (1974). The gift was effective to transfer the husband’s interest. 20 Am. Jur. 2d *Co-*
      *598
      *tenancy and Joint Ownership*§ 94 (1965). In these circumstances, the law is clear that replevin against the donee of a cotenant will not lie. *Witham v. Witham,*57 Me. 447 (1870); Annot., 93 A.L.R.2d 358 (1964). There was no error in denying the petition.

*Exceptions overruled.*
Pou 1-1 (6-99)
Chickens and Eggs Agricultural Statistics Board

June 1999 2 NASS, USDA


Chickens and Eggs Agricultural Statistics Board

Chickens and Eggs Agricultural Statistics Board

June 1999 7 NASS, USDA

Chickens and Eggs Agricultural Statistics Board

June 1999 9 NASS, USDA


Chickens and Eggs Agricultural Statistics Board

June 1999 12 NASS, USDA
Chickens and Eggs Agricultural Statistics Board

June 1999 13 NASS, USDA



Chickens and Eggs Agricultural Statistics Board

June 1999 17 NASS, USDA


The next "Chickens and Eggs" report will be released at 3 p.m. ET on July 23, 1999.
#### THE GERMANIA BANK OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, *v.*GEORGE DISTLER, Impleaded, etc., Appellant.

*Date of insti’ument only presumptive evidence of time of its execution —mistake in*— *may be shown by pa/rol evidence, by indorsee as well as payee.*

The date of an instrument in writing is only presumptive evidence of the time of its actual execution, and such presumption, whenever fraud or mistake is alleged, may be contradicted by parol evidence. *(Drake*v. Rogers, 32 Maine, 524; 1 Parsons on Bills and Notes, 41; *Draper*v. *Snow,*20 N. Y., 331; *Breck*v. *Cole,*4 Sandf., 80.)

Such mistake may be shown as well by the indorsee as by the payee of a promissory note.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered on the verdict of a jury.

This action was upon a promissory note, made by the defendant, payable to the order of Altenbrandt Brothers, and by them indorsed to the plaintiff. It was dated on the 18th of December, 1872, and was due in three.months after its date. The complaint alleged that *634the note was dated in 1872 by mistake, and that it was designed to have been dated in 1871. The answer denied these allegations, and the parties went to trial on this and another issue in the cause ■ not considered on the appeal. It was objected by the defendant that the alleged mistake could not be shown by the plaintiff, or under the pleadings.

*Dailey &*Perry, for the appellant.

*Geo. W. Carpenter,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Daniels, J.

Davis, P. J., and Donohue, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

March 28, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-16480

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 03-20155-CR-MGC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

DOCTOR JAVIER GARCIA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(March 28, 2008)

Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Doctor Javier Garcia appeals his convictions for three conspiracy crimes. 
2

Garcia argues that the district court erred when it permitted the government to

impeach Garcia’s co-defendant Junior Rafael Corrales with Corrales’s convictions

regarding the same conspiracy that was the basis of the charges against Garcia. We

affirm.

When the government cross-examined Corrales about his convictions,

Garcia objected that the subject was “beyond the scope” of his direct examination. 

Garcia now argues that the district court undermined his mistake-of-fact defense

when it allowed the government to impeach Corrales with his conspiracy

convictions. Garcia’s failure to raise this argument in the district court bars relief

unless Garcia establishes a plain error that “seriously jeopardized [his] substantial

rights.” United States v. King, 505 F.2d 602, 605 (5th Cir. 1974).

The district court did not plainly err by permitting the government to

question Corrales about his convictions. Evidence of the convictions allowed the

jury to assess fairly Corrales’s testimony and corrected the impression that

Corrales was acting as a confidential informant and was not a participant in the

conspiracy. See United States v. Deloach, 34 F.3d 1001, 1004 (11th Cir. 1994). 

Although the court did not instruct the jury about the limited use of the

convictions, “the absence of a cautionary instruction alone does not warrant a

conclusion of plain error.” King, 505 F.2d at 607. The government briefly
3

inquired into Corrales’s convictions to establish that Corrales’s actions were not

sanctioned by the government, and the government did not insinuate that

Corrales’s guilt incriminated Garcia. See King, 505 F.2d at 609 (citing United

States v. Rothman, 463 F.2d 488, 490 (2d Cir. 1972)); Deloach, 34 F.3d at 1004. 

The evidence did not preclude Garcia from presenting his mistake-of-fact defense

that he believed he was acting in concert with Corrales to build a drug trafficking

case for the Drug Enforcement Agency. See King, 505 F.2d at 609. 

Garcia’s convictions are AFFIRMED.
#### § 110.67 Delaware River, Essington, Pa.

North of Little Tinicum Island, between the mouth of Darby Creek and Jansen Avenue, Essington, bounded as follows: Beginning at a point (approximately latitude 39°51′31′′, longitude 75°17′43′′) on a line in prolongation of the westerly line of Jansen Avenue 135 yards southerly from the mean high water line; thence 184°, 300 yards; thence 274°30′, 1,700 yards; thence 04°, 425 yards; thence 100°, 1,225 yards; and thence 95°, 490 yards, to the point of beginning.
Editorial Note on Part 165
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 165 appear by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, 36329, July 2, 2007 and by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019.

§ 165.500 Safety/Security Zones; Chesapeake Bay, Maryland. ( a ) *Definitions.* ( 1 ) Certain Dangerous Cargo (CDC) means a material defined in 33 CFR part 160.
( 2 ) Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG) means a material defined in 33 CFR part 127.
( 3 ) Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) means a material defined in 33 CFR part 127.
( 4 ) Cruise ship means a vessel defined as a “passenger vessel” in 46 U.S.C. 2101 (22).
( b ) *Location.* The following areas are a safety/security zone: All waters of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, from surface to bottom, within a 500 yard radius around cruise ships and vessels transporting CDC, LNG, or LHG while transiting, anchored, or moored within the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region zone.
( c ) *Regulations.* ( 1 ) The COTP will notify the maritime community of affected vessels and the periods during which the safety/security zones will be enforced by providing notice to mariners in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.
( 2 ) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard COTP, Maryland-National Capital Region or his designated representative.
( 3 ) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the COTP at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the COTP or his or her designated representative.
( d ) *Authority.* In addition to 46 U.S.C. 70034, the authority for this section includes 46 U.S.C. 70051.
[CDG05-03-008, 68 FR 43311, July 22, 2003, as amended by USCG-2016-0060, 81 FR 38594, June 14, 2016]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"ADR.gov","provider_url":"https:\/\/adr.gov","title":"FAR-Based Contracting","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"EhCJhOljTc\"><a href=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/04-far\/\">FAR-Based Contracting<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/04-far\/embed\/#?secret=EhCJhOljTc\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FAR-Based Contracting” — ADR.gov\" data-secret=\"EhCJhOljTc\" 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"}
#### THE UNION DIME SAVINGS INSTITUTION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK v. EMMA LOUISA OSLEY and others, Respondents, and ADDISON P. SMITH, Executor, etc., Appellant.

*Surplus moneys—m'der of reference—object of.*

Appeal from an order vacating and setting aside the report of a referee, made in proceedings relative to surplus moneys. In this matter, the claims presented, except one for funeral expenses, were seriously contested. The order of reference was made, however, without objection.

The court at General Term *held,*that the order of reference usually made to ascertain and report the amount of surplus money remaining, after a sale on foreclosure, and the liens and claims against the same, and their priorities, is not granted for the investigation and determination of contested' claims, but for the purpose of ascertaining liens and claims about which there is no dispute, and to settle the priorities of the liens, that each may be adjusted according to its legal status.

That though the rule is in favor of a referee’s report in actions regularly commenced as such, when conflict in. the evidence and proof exists, unless the preponderance of evidence is against its propriety, or it is apparent that the referee has clearly misunderstood the evidence; yet the rule is not conclusive even in such cases, and each' proceeding stands upon its own elements, to be disposed of as they affect the appellate tribunal.

In this matter, which was a summary proceeding and not an action, and under the circumstances which marked its progress, and the doubt which existed in relation to the counter-claim urged, the court thought it better to compel the parties, claimants, to proceed by action in the usual way, and thus afford the devisees all the benefits arising from the advantages of pleadings, and the tribunals which are by law designated for the investigation and adjudication of disputed claims.

The precedent of submitting such demands to determination on an application to ascertain liens upon surplus funds, does not com*658mend itself. (See *King v. West,*10 How. Pr., 333; *Husted*v. *Dakin,*17 Abb. Pr., 137.) And when the reference is made, as in this case, to ascertain and report, the court should be satisfied by the result, beyond all doubt, before adopting the report that the claims are just and should be paid. The court was not so satisfied, and it directed the funds to be kept in court, or rather on deposit, until the claims should be determined.

*R. F. Andrews,*for the appellant.

*Andrew Blake,*for the respondents.

Opinion by

Brady, J.

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred

Order affirmed, and proceedings referred to a referee to hear and determine the claims.
Scuuly Coveiln.w 

PO Bo7u2034 

flda.k ~ tlK 99546 

907-572-9438 

March 16, 2015 

Mr. Kevin Schlemmer 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Departrnent of Transportation 

120o New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

RE: Essential Air Services Proposal, Docket DOT-OST-200o-8556 

Dear Mr. Schlemmer, 

The Sandy Cove Inn is pleased to support Alaska Airlines in their endeavor to provide 

Adak, Alaska with Essential Air Services. The Sandy Cove Inn depends on Alaska Airlines for 

transportation of guests and freight. Our customers including contractors, fishermen, hunters 

and tourists mostly arrive in Adak via Alaska Airlines. 

Alaska Airlines provides reliable service and flights in a professional and timely manner. 

I urge you and the United States Department of Transportation to award Alaska Airlines with 

the Essential Air Services Contract for services to and from Adak, Alaska for the period October 

2017 through September 2019. 

Best Regards, 

Debra Sharrah, Owner 

Sandy Cove Inn
Exhibit 32(c)


                                  CERTIFICATION

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


In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Georgia
Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, we, the undersigned,
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our individual
knowledge and belief, that:

     (1)  such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Georgia Power Company for the
          quarter ended September 30, 2004, which this statement accompanies,
          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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
          Georgia Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, fairly
          presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
          results of operations of Georgia Power Company.



                             /s/Michael D. Garrett
                               Michael D. Garrett
                      President and Chief Executive Officer



                                 /s/C. B. Harreld
                                  C. B. Harreld
               Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
                        Treasurer and Assistant Secretary

Date:  November 5, 2004
§ 175.310 Portable fire extinguishers and semi-portable fire extinguishing systems. ( a ) All portable and semi-portable fire extinguishers must— ( 1 ) Be on board and readily accessible;
( 2 ) Be of an approved type;
( 3 ) Not be expired or appear to have been previously used; and
( 4 ) Be maintained in good and serviceable working condition, meaning: ( i ) If the extinguisher has a pressure gauge reading or indicator it must be in the operable range or position;
( ii ) The lock pin is firmly in place;
( iii ) The discharge nozzle is clean and free of obstruction; and
( iv ) The extinguisher does not show visible signs of significant corrosion or damage.
( b ) Vaporizing-liquid type fire extinguishers containing carbon tetrachloride, chlorobromomethane, or other toxic vaporizing liquids, are not acceptable as equipment required by this subpart.
( c ) Portable or semi-portable extinguishers that are required by their name plates to be protected from freezing must not be located where freezing temperatures may be expected.
( d ) The use of dry chemical stored pressure fire extinguishers not fitted with pressure gauges or indicating devices, manufactured prior to January 1, 1965, is permitted on board recreational vessels if such extinguishers are maintained in good and serviceable condition. The following maintenance and inspections are required for such extinguishers: ( 1 ) When the date on the inspection record tag on the extinguishers shows that 6 months have elapsed since the last weight check ashore, then such extinguishers are no longer accepted as meeting required maintenance conditions until they are reweighed ashore, found to be in a serviceable condition, and within required weight conditions.
( 2 ) If the weight of the container is 1 ⁄ 4 ounce less than that stamped on the container, it must be serviced.
( 3 ) If the outer seal or seals (which indicate tampering or use when broken) are not intact, the boarding officer or marine inspector will inspect such extinguishers to see that the frangible disc in the neck of the container is intact; and, if such disc is not intact, the container must be serviced.
( 4 ) If there is evidence of damage, use, or leakage, such as dry chemical powder observed in the nozzle or elsewhere on the extinguisher, the extinguisher must be serviced or replaced.
( e ) Dry chemical extinguishers, stored pressure extinguishers, and fire extinguishers without pressure gauges or indicating devices, manufactured after January 1, 1965, cannot be labeled with the marine type label described in 46 CFR 162.028-4. These extinguishers may be carried onboard recreational vessels as excess equipment, subject to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
( f ) Semi-portable extinguishers must be fitted with a suitable hose and nozzle, or other practicable means, so that all portions of the space concerned may be covered.
§ 187.316 Termination statement. ( a ) A secured party indicated in the files of the office as having a security interest in a vessel must deliver a termination statement to the office and, on the debtor's request, to the debtor, by the earlier of— ( 1 ) Twenty days after the secured party receives a signed demand from an owner for a termination statement and there is no obligation secured by the vessel subject to the security interest and no commitment to make an advance, incur an obligation, or otherwise give value secured by the vessel; or
( 2 ) If the vessel is consumer goods, 30 days after there is no obligation secured by the vessel and no commitment to make an advance, incur an obligation, or otherwise give value secured by the vessel.
( b ) If a written certificate of title has been created and delivered to a secured party and a termination statement is required under paragraph (a) of this section, the secured party, not later than the date required by paragraph (a), must deliver the certificate to the debtor or to the office with the statement. If the certificate is lost, stolen, mutilated, destroyed, or is otherwise unavailable or illegible, the secured party must deliver with the statement, not later than the date required by paragraph (a), an application for a replacement certificate meeting the requirements of § 187.322.
( c ) On delivery to the office of a termination statement authorized by the secured party, the security interest to which the statement relates ceases to be perfected. If the security interest to which the statement relates was indicated on the certificate of title, the office must create a new certificate and deliver the new certificate or a record evidencing an electronic certificate. The office must maintain in its files the date and time of delivery to the office of the statement.
( d ) A secured party that fails to comply with this section is liable for any loss that the secured party had reason to know might result from its failure to comply and which could not reasonably have been prevented and for the cost of an application for a certificate of title under § 187.307 or § 187.322.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 111 (Thursday, June 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36461-36462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14504]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of amendment to approved Tribal-State Compact.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 
1988, Pub. L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2710, the Secretary of the 
Interior shall publish, in the Federal Register, notice of approved 
Tribal-State Compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming 
activities on Indian lands. The Assistant

[[Page 36462]]

Secretary--Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, through his 
delegated authority, has approved the Seventh Renewal of Agreement 
between the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and the State of Montana regarding 
Class III gaming on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation which was 
executed on April 7, 2000.

DATES: This action is effective upon date of publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George T. Skibine, Director Office of 
Indian Gaming Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C. 
20240, (202) 219-4066.

    Dated: May 25, 2000.
Kevin Gover,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 00-14504 Filed 6-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P