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

No. 7931

#### The State of New Hampshire, Department of Health & Welfare Division of Public Health Services v. George Blaisdell

January 16, 1978

*6*David H. Souter,*attorney general *(Andrew R. Grainger;*attorney, orally), for the State.

*Devine, Millimet, Stahl & Branch,*of Manchester *(Shane Devine*orally), for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

Petition for contempt based on violations of licensing requirements of RSA 151:2 (Supp. 1975) (nursing home) and RSA 151-A:2 (Supp. 1975) (nursing home administrator).

Briefly, the pertinent facts are as follows: On August 28, 1972, the defendant was found in contempt of a court order entered by *King,*J., on August 15, 1972, enjoining operation of defendant’s premises as a nursing home. On July 3, 1973, the State filed a second petition for an order of contempt and the court issued an order permitting inspection of defendant’s facility by the department of health and welfare. On October 10, 1973, after hearing, the defendant was again found in contempt of the August 15 order and committed to jail for fifteen days. After seven days in jail the defendant was ordered released on his motion to be purged of contempt. In early November 1973, a motion for rehearing requesting “an adjudication of the question of what use of his facility will be permitted by the Court” was filed accompanied by an offer of proof. On November 7, 1973, the court ruled that “on its face this motion requires no action by this Court.” On October 6, 1976, another petition for contempt, the subject of the present proceedings, was filed by the State.

On April 15, 1977, after hearing, the Superior Court *(Mullavey,*J.) found the defendant in contempt of court for a third time “in that he continued his business operations in violation of the Court’s orders dated August 15,1972, and November 9,1973.” A thirty-day jail sentence was imposed. Defendant appeals.

The defendant’s contention is that there is “an essential lack of evidence sufficient to carry the State’s burden of proof *7beyond a reasonable doubt. . . .” We agree that in criminal con-tempts the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in violation of the court order. *State v. Linsky,*117 N.H. 866, 379 A.2d 813 (1977). The credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the evidence is a question to be resolved by the trial court. *Sullivan v. Chapman,*117 N.H. 1060, 381 A.2d 749 (1977). A review of the record reveals evidence to support the findings made and the verdict entered by the court must therefore stand. *Wilson v. Came,*117 N.H. 1020, 381 A.2d 32 (1977); *Wheelen v. Robinson,*117 N.H. 1032, 381 A.2d 742 (1977).

*Exception overruled.*

Lampeón, J., did not sit.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SLING TV, L.L.C., SLING MEDIA, L.L.C., DISH 

NETWORK L.L.C., DISH TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.,

Defendants-Appellees

SLING MEDIA, INC., ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES 

LLC,

Defendants

______________________ 

2021-2268

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado in No. 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ, Judge R. 

Brooke Jackson.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

BRIAN DAVID LEDAHL, Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by 

MARC A. FENSTER, REZA MIRZAIE, JAMES S. TSUEI, PHILIP 

WANG, SHANI M. WILLIAMS. 

Case: 21-2268 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 05/11/2023
 ADAM SHARTZER, Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, 

DC, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by 

MICHAEL JOHN BALLANCO, RUFFIN B. CORDELL, BRIAN 

JAMES LIVEDALEN. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, HUGHES, and STARK, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

May 11, 2023 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 21-2268 Document: 61 Page: 2 Filed: 05/11/2023
§ 401.54 Interference with navigation aids. ( a ) Aids to navigation shall not be interfered with or used as moorings.
( b ) No person shall, unless authorized by the Corporation or the Manager, set out buoys or navigation markers on the Seaway.
[39 FR 10900, Mar. 22, 1974, as amended at 65 FR 52914, 52915, Aug. 31, 2000]
#### CAMBRIDGE LIVINGSTON, Executor of, etc., Respondent, *v.*AGNES MURRAY, Impleaded, etc., Appellant.

*Will*— *life estate*— *trustee of.*

The plaintiff's testator by his will provided: “ Secondly. All the rest of my estate, of whatsoever kind, I hereby direct shall be divided equally among all my children, and in case of their death before me, among their lawful issue, the share of the child or children so dying shall go and be divided among his or her children; and it is my wish that my executors cause the portion that may belong to my daughters to be secured to them for their separate use during their natural lives, free from the control of any husband with whom they have been or may at any time be intermarried, and in case of their dying without issue, such portion of their said property as may remain at the time of her or their death, shall revert to her or their surviving brothers and sisters, or their issue in case of their death, as hereinbefore provided for. Subject, however, to the right of such daughter to dispose of one-half of such property by will in such manner as she may think proper.”

By a codicil thereto he further directed: “Sixth. Inasmuch as there may be some obscurity in my said last will and testament, as to the title to the portions given to my children, I do hereby give, devise and bequeath * * ' * to my daughters, an estate for life, remainder to the lawful issue of each respectively, if any such they leave, in fee simple and absolutely, subject to the right of my said daughters to dispose of one-half of their share by will, as in my said last will and testament provided, and also subject, however, to the power in trust to sell and convey given to my executors, or such as may qualify, and the survivors or survivor of them. * * * In case any of my said daughters die without leaving issue, then such portion of her share as she shall not have devised or bequeathed, as herein or therein provided, shall pass to her or their brothers and sisters, or to their issue, in case of their death, as in said will provided.”

*Held*(1), that each daughter took an estate for life in her share, without the right to control or reduce the capital except by her will; (2), that the court had power to appoint a trustee for the protection of the daughters and those in remainder.

Appeal from a judgment entered on the report of a referee. This action was brought to secure the judicial construction of *620the will of James B. Murray, deceased. By the judgment entered in the action, the appellant was declared, entitled to a life estate only, and her share was directed to be transferred to the New York Life Insurance and Trust Company, to be held by it as her *trustee;*and the income thereof paid to her during her natural life.

*Joseph H.*Choate, for the appellant.

*Grosvenor P.*Lowery, for the respondent.

Opinion by

Daniels, J.

Davis, P. J., and Brady, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"ADR.gov","provider_url":"https:\/\/adr.gov","title":"But We Have a Great Case!","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"2lRlMLa3si\"><a href=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/28-great-case\/\">But We Have a Great Case!<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/28-great-case\/embed\/#?secret=2lRlMLa3si\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“But We Have a Great Case!” — ADR.gov\" data-secret=\"2lRlMLa3si\" 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"}
Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM   Document 117-6   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2023   Page 1 of 2

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM   Document 117-6   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2023   Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 111 (Thursday, June 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 36428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14390]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-302-000]


Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc; Notice of Filing of Cash-Out 
Report

June 2, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 30, 2000, Williams Gas Pipelines Central, 
Inc. (Williams) tended for filing, pursuant to Article 9.8(d) of the 
General Terms and Conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff, its report of net 
revenue received from cash-outs. Williams proposes to make the refund 
upon Commission approval of its calculation method as set out in this 
report.
    Williams states that pursuant to the cash-out mechanism in Article 
9.8(a)(iv) of its FERC Gas Tariff, Shippers were given the option of 
resolving their imbalances by the end of the calendar month following 
the month in which the imbalance occurred by cashing-out such 
imbalances at 100% of the spot market price applicable to Williams as 
published in the first issue of Inside FERC's Gas Market Report for the 
month in which the imbalance occurred. Net monthly imbalances which 
were not resolved by the end of the second month following the month in 
which the imbalance occurred and which exceeded the tolerance specified 
in Article 9.8(b) were cashed-out at a premium or discount from the 
spot price according to the schedules set forth in Article 9.8(c). 
Williams is herewith filing its report of net revenue (sales less 
purchase cost) received from cash-outs.
    Williams states that a copy of its filing was served on all 
jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before June 9, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining 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 in the Public Reference Room. This 
filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/rims.htm 
(call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-14390 Filed 6-7-00 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
(816) 983-8000 7/16/2014 3:04:39 PM PAGE 1/002 Husch Blackwell LLP 

Thomas L. Gemmell 

_Partner 

120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200 

Chicago, _IL 60()06~391;! 

Diret:.t: 312.526.1523 

Fax.: 312,655.1501 

tom,gemmcll@huschblackwell.com 

David C, Age~ 

.Partner 

901 St. Louis Stn:~et, Suite 1800 

Springfield, Mo 6_5tl(l6~2540 

Direc.t: 417.268-.4066 

Fax: 417)68.4040 

david.~cc@huscbhlack\:~,'e{l.com 

July 15, 2014 

Via Facsimile 

202.493.2251 

Docket Management l<'acility 

U.S. DepartmMt of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12··140 

\Vashington, DC 20590 

Re: Docket No. FAAN2014~0352 

To \Vhom It May Concern: 

This comment is being submitted in connection with th_e various film industry petitions 

submitted under Scctioil333 of the .FAA 1v1odernization and Reform Act of20l2. We wish to 

voice our support for the exemption process to permit commercial operation o:f unmanned 

aircraft systems (UAS). While th~re are legitimate concerns regarding the use ofUAS, the· 

tccbnol()gy is here to stay and it should be allowed when cow..merci,tl busines;>es cHn dem:onstrate 

parameters to ensure safe operations. 

Our firm, Busch Blackwell LLP, represents various entities. across a \Viele r-ange of 

industries, such as agriculture, ene-rgy, construction, real estate, and many othet·s. As the 

tech.nology is advancing, th9se industries arc tinding applkations for UAS ·to allow them to more 

eHlciently and more safety conduct their operations. Vle support a process, such as thcinstatlt 

petitions for exemption .• that would allow commcrcia.l businesses to take advantage of 

technology afibrded by UAS when it can be demonstrnied that the proposed applic-ation ofUAS 

·will be o.perated in a sate manner. 

In this regard,. it ls of the utmost hilporta.."lce to everyone that all aircraft (manne.d and 

unmanned) operate in a manner that does not compromise the safety of the national airspace 

system (NAS). If a commercial business is able to show that a proposed use of UAS v.rill not 

coiU:promise the. safety of the NAS~ or persons or property on the grmmd, then it would. seem 

acceptable to allow such operations. \Vhile we tmderstand the constraints on the timing ofthe 

rulemaking process, \Ve believe the granting of petitions for exemption u11der Se<:;tion 33 3 would 

q-u:35020-1 1-lllsch Blac.kwell LLP 
(816) 983-8000 

July 15, 2014 

Page2 

7/16/2014 3:04:39 PM PAGE 2/002 Husch Blackwell LLP 

permit the FAA to use the tools that it c.ttrrently has at its disp{)Sal to allow safe c'Onunerc.ial UAS 

op~rations. 

TLG:ch 

CH1· 3 5020·.1 

Re~pect:fully Slthmitted;.7 

d ·f /'~ (. .. </ ..... /,, ' . I I ,. ,._. ·'l ,1 

~t'Ui-{.·:A ... _~.- \.' . -r?tf'!z,'t..-~/ I . ·' I / l 

-1Javid C. Agee {/ 

Co-Chair, UAS Practice Team 

Husch Blackwell L.LP
Exhibit 31(a)CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERI, Alan R. Abrams, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this amendment no. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofServidyne, Inc.; and  2. Based on my knowledge, this amendment no. 1 does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by the report.        Date: March 14, 2007 /s/ Alan R. Abrams   Alan R. Abrams   Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4950 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4950

    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase the 
 proportion of charges Medicare recognizes for mental health services 
furnished to qualified Medicare beneficiaries who reside in congregate 
                              residences.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 2000

 Mr. Greenwood (for himself, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Burr of North Carolina, 
Mr. Strickland, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. McGovern, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, 
 and Ms. Kaptur) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and 
 Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase the 
 proportion of charges Medicare recognizes for mental health services 
furnished to qualified Medicare beneficiaries who reside in congregate 
                              residences.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN MEDICARE PAYMENT FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 
              PROVIDED TO QUALIFIED MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES WHO RESIDE 
              IN CONGREGATE RESIDENCES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1833(c) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395l(c)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)'';
            (2) by inserting ``subject to paragraph (2),'' after 
        ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this part,'';
            (3) by designating the second sentence as paragraph (3); 
        and
            (4) by inserting after the first sentence the following new 
        paragraph:
    ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the case of an individual 
who has been determined to be a qualified medicare beneficiary (as 
defined in section 1905(p)(1)) who is residing in a skilled nursing 
facility, nursing facility, or custodial care facility.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
services furnished on or after January 1, 2001.
                                 <all>
```
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:  Outcome Prediction ADR

															Home/ADR Resources and Guidance/Guidance/Outcome Prediction ADR Outcome Prediction ADRADR2022-02-17T18:37:44-05:00
			
			Outcome Prediction ADROutcome prediction ADR is the most frequently used type of ADR at GAO.  It may be appropriate where the record has been fully developed for the dispositive issues and there is clearly controlling precedent.  During outcome prediction ADR, the GAO attorney will explain orally the predicted outcome of the protest, along with an explanation of the basis for that view, and identify the party that will likely be successful.  If the GAO attorney predicts that the protest will be sustained, he or she may also identify recommendations for corrective action.  Outcome prediction ADR is usually conducted with the expectation that the unsuccessful party will take action (withdrawal of the protest or corrective action) that will resolve the protest rather than continuing to a final decision.  The parties should expect that the outcome predicted by the GAO attorney is provided with the approval of the attorney’s supervisors and therefore contains a high degree of certainty. Copyright 2022 ADR.gov | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Section 508
**Exhibit 31(c)2**

**GEORGIA POWER COMPANY**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 

I, Cliff S. Thrasher, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Georgia Power Company;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.

The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  May 7, 2007

/s/Cliff S. Thrasher

Cliff S. Thrasher

Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer