alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Frank O. Olsen v. Ada Webb.

Filed June 6, 1894.

No. 4965.

Landlord and Tenant: Injuries to Property: Burden of Proof. A land-owner sued his tenant for damages for injuries inflicted by her on his property during her occupancy thereof. The tenant answered that whatever injury she had done to the property was by the direction and permission of the land-owner. To this he replied by a general denial. The court instructed the jury: “The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to make out his case.i He must satisfy you by a preponderance of the evidence that the things complained of were done by the defendant without authority from him and the amount of damage done.” *Held,*Error; that the defense was an affirmative one, and the burden of proof was upon the defendant to prove it. *Williams v. Evans,*6 Neb., 216, followed.

Error from the district court of Douglas county. Tried below before Hopewell, J.

*148
      *G. P. Halligan,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. G. Van Gilder, contra.*

Ragan, C.

Prank O. Olsen sued Ada Webb in the district court of Douglas county for damages, alleging that Miss Webb, while his tenant, cut, sawed, broke, and otherwise injured the building leased to her. To this petition Miss Webb filed an answer consisting of a general denial and an affirmative defense, that if there was any -cutting, sawing, or any other injury done to the premises it was done at the dictation and express orders of Olsen. To this answer Olsen filed a reply consisting of a general denial. Miss Webb had a verdict and judgment, and Olsen brings the case here on error.

On the trial of the case the district court instructed the jury as follows: “The court instructs the jury that the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to make out his case. He must satisfy you by a preponderance of the evidence that the things complained of were done by the defendant without authority from him, and the amount of damages done.” The giving of this instruction is the only error assigned. The burden of proof was upon Olsen to show that Miss Webb had damaged his property, and the amount of such damage, but the burden was not upon him to show that the damage done by her to his property was without his authority. Miss Webb, by her answer, in effect pleaded that the damage done to Olsen’s property by her was caused by his authority and direction. This was a good defense, if proved. It was an affirmative defense, and the burden was upon her to show it. *(Williams v. Evans,*6 Neb., 216.) The instruction was erroneous and the judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and' remanded.
### L'^r r C Fnr^^f ) •^'pHlriJIO N 

### BEFOR E TH E DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N WASHINGTON , D.C .

) Nondiscriminatio n o n th e Basi s o f ) Docke t OST-2008-027 3 Disabilit y i n Ai r

Travel ; Fina l Rul e )

. ) MOTIO N O F AEROV f A S DE L CONTINENT E AMERICAN O S A AVIANC A FO RCONFIDENTIA L TREATMEN T

Communication s with respec t t o thi s documen t

shoul db e sen t

to : Richar dD . Mathia s Davi dM . Endersbe e 

### ZUCKERT , SCOUT T & RASENBERGER , L.L.P . 88 8 17"'Street , N.W . Washington , D.C . 2003 6 Tel : 202-298-866 0 Fax : 202-342-068 3 Email : rdmathias@zsrlaw.co m dmendersbee(@2srlaw.co m Counse l fo

r Aerovia s de l Continent e American o S A Avianc a Apri l 9 , 201 0BEFOR E TH E DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C .

Nondiscriminatio n o n th e Basi s o f Disabilit y i n Ai r

Travel ; Fina l Rul e ) ) Docke t

OST-2008-027 3 ) 

## J

MOTIO N O F AEROVIA S DE L CONTINENT E AMERICAN O S A AVIANC A

FO RCONFIDENTIA L TREATMEN T Aerovia s de l Continent e American o S A Avianc a("Avianca" ) respectfull y moves , pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 302.12 , for confidential treatmen t

o f certai n informatio n submitte di n connectio n with Avianca' s Applicatio n fo r a n Equivalen t

Alternativ e Determinatio n (th e "Application") , whic h i s bein g submitte dconcurrently . Th e confidentia

l informatio n for

whic h confidential treatmen t i s bein g requeste dar e separatel y enclose din a

n envelop e marke d"Confidential Treatmen t Requeste dUnde r

§302.12. ' Subsectio n (b)(4 ) o f

th e Freedo mo f

Informatio n Ac t

("FOIA" ) exempt s "trad e secret s an dcommercial o r

financial informatio n obtaine dfro maperso n an dprivilege do r confidential " firompubli c disclosure . 5 U.S.C . § 552(b)(4) . Th e aircraf t deliver y schedul e fo

r whic h confidential treatmen t

i s requeste dclearl y meet s thi s standar dbecaus e i t is : (1 ) commercial o r financial information , (2 ) obtaine dfix>maperso n outsid e th e government , an d(3 ) privilege do r confidential . Releas e o f

thi s detaile ddat awoul dcaus e Avianc acompetitiv e harm .Motio n o f Aerovia s Del Continent e American o S.A . Fo r Confidential Treatmen t Apri l 12.201 0 WHEREFORE , Aerovia s de l Continent e American o S A Avianc arespectfiill y request s th e Departmen t

treat a s confidential th e informatio n mor e fully describe dabove . Respectfiill y submitted , 

# '^J/<

- Richar dD . Mathia s Davi dM . Endersbe e 

### ZUCKERT , SCOUT T & RASENBERGER , L.L.P . 88 8 17"'Street , N.W . Washington , D.C . 2003 6 Tel : 202-298-866 0 Fax : 202-342-068 3 Email : rdmathias(5).zsrlaw.co m dmender^bee@zsrlaw.co m Counse l fo r

Aerovia s de l Continent e American o S A Avianc a Apri l 9,201 0
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5332 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5332

 To amend the motor vehicle safety chapter of title 49, United States 
  Code to make it illegal for any person to sell a tire which is the 
                          subject of a recall.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 2000

  Mr. Bryant introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the motor vehicle safety chapter of title 49, United States 
  Code to make it illegal for any person to sell a tire which is the 
                          subject of a recall.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Tire Recall Safety Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF SALE OF RECALLED TIRE.

    (a) Prohibition.--Section 30120 of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(j) Prohibition of Sale of Recalled Tire.--No person may sell or 
lease a tire which is the subject of a recall under this section.''.
    (b) Penalty.--
            (1) In General.--Subchapter IV of chapter 301 of title 49, 
        United States Code is amended by adding at the end the 
        following:
``Sec. 30170. Criminal penalties
    ``A person who knowingly violates section 30120(j) which violation 
caused a motor vehicle accident in which there was serious personal 
injury (including death) shall be subject to imprisonment for 10 
years.''.
            (2) Clerical Amendment.--The subchapter analysis for 
        subchapter IV of chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, 
        is amended by adding at the end the following:

``30170. Criminal penalties''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1996 AND THE CONDENSED STATEMENT OF 
OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<CASH>                                               8
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,941
<ALLOWANCES>                                       526
<INVENTORY>                                     15,393
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,404
<PP&E>                                           7,514
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,757
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,996
<BONDS>                                          9,268
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              989
<PREFERRED>                                      4,581
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,656)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,178
<SALES>                                          3,153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,153
<CGS>                                            2,702
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,702
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,290
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    53
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 192
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,084)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         9
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,093)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,093)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Adams Resources & Energy, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 (the “Report”),
I, K. S. Adams, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





/s/ K. S. Adams,
Jr.


K. S.
Adams, Jr.


Chief
Executive Officer
I t Hardesty 

# P CP.4.3t Parraguirre Having considered the petition, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is warranted. See NRS 34.160; Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; see also NRAP 21(a)(4) (requiring a petitioner to attach an appendix to his or her petition including a copy of any part of the record before the respondent or any original document necessary for this court to understand the matters set forth in the petition). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

cc: Randall George Angel McDonald Carano Wilson LLP/Las Vegas Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNoise Transmission Loss of a Rectangular Plate in an Infinite BaffleAn improved analytical procedure was developed that allows for the efficient calculation of the noise transmission characteristics of a finite rectangular plate. Both isotropic and symmetrically laminated composite plates are considered. The plate is modeled with classic thin-plate theory and is assumed to be simply supported on all four sides. The incident acoustic pressure is assumed to be a plane wave impinging on the plate at an arbitrary angle. The reradiated pressure is assumed to be negligible compared with the blocked pressure, and the plate vibrations are calculated by a normal-mode approach. A Green's function integral equation is used to link the plate vibrations to be transmitted far-field sound waves, and transmission loss is calculated from the ratio of incident to transmitted acoustic powers. The result is a versatile research and engineering analysis tool that predicts noise transmission loss and enables the determination of the modal behavior of the plate.Document ID19850013799Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsRoussos, Louis A.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1985Subject CategoryAcousticsReport/Patent NumberL-15861NASA-TP-2398NAS 1.60:2398Meeting InformationMeeting: Meeting of the Acoustical Society of AmericaLocation: Norfolk, VACountry: United StatesStart Date: May 7, 1984End Date: May 10, 1984Accession Number85N22109Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-33-53Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19850013799.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### § 962.14 Enforcement of subpoenas.

In the case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena issued pursuant to §§ 962.9(b)(5) and 962.13, the district courts of the United States have jurisdiction to issue an appropriate order for the enforcement of such subpoena. Any failure to obey such order of the court may be punishable as contempt. In any case in which the Postal Service seeks the enforcement of a subpoena under this section, the Postal Service shall request the Attorney General to petition the district court for the district in which a hearing under this part is being conducted or in which the person receiving the subpoena resides or conducts business to issue such an order.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 14, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37364-37365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14921]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP96-152-026]


Kansas Pipeline Company; Notice of Waiver

June 8, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 26, 2000, Kansas Pipeline Company (KPC) 
tendered for filing a request for waiver of the EDI format requirement 
of the GISB standards. KPC has requested that its current waiver, until 
August 1, 2000, be extended for an additional one year, until August 1, 
2001.
    KPC states that copies of this filing have been served on all 
parties to the proceeding in Docket No. CP96-152.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before June 15, 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. 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/online/rims.htm 

[[Page 37365]]

(call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-14921 Filed 6-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
2019 FOIA Quarterly Report – Q4

Agency

Corporation for National and Community Service

Reporting Quarter

2019 Q4

10 Oldest Requests

Did your agency have 10 or more perfected requests pending at the end of the last fiscal year? If so, please select 

the number 10. If your agency had fewer than 10, please select the correct number.

4

Of the ten or fewer requests identified in your previous response, please select the number of requests your 

agency has closed during the current fiscal year.

4

FOIA Requests Information

Component Requests Received in Requests Processed in Requests Backlogged as of

Reporting Quarter Reporting Quarter End of Reporting Quarter 

CNCS 17 13 3
### Regular Totals (Operators)

Airport = EWR

Operator = 0001(Exclude)

Status Date = 01/01/2012 (History & Current) 02/23/2015 07:56:22



### Query Parameters:

### 02/23/2015 07:56:22

Carrier 

### Regular Totals (Operators)

Excludes FAA Held Slots Held less than 5 days are Excluded PF7 Status Date = 01/01/2012 (History & Current)

EWR

AAL AMERICAN AIRLINES 32

ACA AIR CANADA 19

AFR AIR FRANCE 2

AIC AIR INDIA 2

ASA ALASKA AIRLINES 4

ASH MESA AIRLINES 4

AVI L'AVION/OPENSKIES 4

AZA ALITALIA 2

BAW BRITISH AIRWAYS 6

CAA ATLANTIC SOUTHEAST AIRLINES (code 6

CHQ CHAUTAUQUA 4

CKS KALITTA FLYING SERVICES (AMERICAN INT'L 2

COM COMAIR AIRLINES 13

CPZ COMPASS AIRLINES 7

CSQ IBC AIRWAYS 2

DAL DELTA AIR LINES 33

DLH DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA 9

EGF AMR EAGLE HOLDING COPR. (FORMERLY 1

ELY EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES 1

FDX FED EX 8

JAI JET AIRWAYS 2

JBU JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP. 34

JZA AIR CANADA JAZZ 4

PDT PIEDMONT AIRLINES, INC. (FORMERLY 8

POE PORTER AIRLINES 22

SAS SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES 4

SIA SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED 2

SWA SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 35

SWR SWISS INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES (SWISSAIR 2

TAP TAP-AIR PORTUGAL 2

UAL UNITED AIRLINES 907

UPS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 2

USA US AIRWAYS 19

VIR VIRGIN ATLANTIC AIR 4

WJA WESTJET 1

Page 2
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5434 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5434

     To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate 
  discriminatory copayment rates for outpatient psychiatric services 
                      under the Medicare Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 10, 2000

 Mrs. Roukema 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 eliminate 
  discriminatory copayment rates for outpatient psychiatric services 
                      under the Medicare Program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Mental Illness 
Nondiscrimination Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATORY COPAYMENT RATES FOR MEDICARE 
              OUTPATIENT PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES.

    Section 1833 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l) is 
amended by striking subsection (c).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit






EXHIBIT 10.1 



March 6, 2019
Buffy White
Buffy,
Congratulations, it is with great pleasure that I inform you that the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors has approved an adjustment to your base salary and STI. Your base salary will be increased to $400,000 per annum, effective February 28, 2019. Your Short-Term Incentive target will also be increased to 70% of your base salary for 2019. Your 2019 Long-Term Incentive target, remains 60% of your base salary. Altogether, your Total Direct Compensation, at target, for 2019 is $920, 000.
All other terms and conditions of employment will remain unchanged as per your original offer letter of employment.
Buffy, I know you will continue to display the same level of enthusiasm and enterprise, which you have exhibited throughout your tenure at Cross Country Healthcare. I am looking forward to your continued contribution to the success of the organization.
Sincerely,


/s/ Kevin Clark     
Kevin Clark
President & Chief Executive Officer    






Acknowledgement: /s/ Buffy White      
                                Buffy White
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5294

To require the Federal Communications Commission to completely and accurately fulfill the support requirements for universal service for high

cost areas, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 26, 2000

Mr. DEAL of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To require the Federal Communications Commission to completely and accurately fulfill the support requirements

for universal service for high cost areas, and for other

purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Universal Service Suf5 ficiency Act of 2000’’.
2

•HR 5294 IH

1 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF IMPEDIMENTS TO SUFFICIENT SUP2 PORT MECHANISMS.

3 Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 is

4 amended by adding at the end the following new sub5 section:

6 ‘‘(l) REMOVAL OF IMPEDIMENTS TO SUFFICIENT

7 SUPPORT MECHANISMS.—

8 ‘‘(1) REMOVAL OF INTERIM CAP ON HIGH COST

9 SUPPORT MECHANISMS..—The interim cap on total

10 nationwide loop cost expense adjustments contained

11 in section 36.601(c) of the Federal Communications

12 Commission’s regulations (47 CFR 36.601) shall

13 cease to be effective on the date of enactment of the

14 Universal Service Sufficiency Act of 2000. The Fed15 eral Communications Commission shall not, on or

16 after such date of enactment, enforce or reimpose

17 such cap.

18 ‘‘(2) REMOVAL OF INTERIM CAPS ON INDI19 VIDUAL CARRIERS.—The Federal Communications

20 Commission shall not—

21 ‘‘(A) enforce individual caps imposed on

22 carriers by orders of the Commission entered in

23 connection with requests prior to the date of en24 actment of the Universal Service Sufficiency

25 Act of 2000 for study area waivers; or
3

•HR 5294 IH

1 ‘‘(B) impose any new cap that would limit

2 the per loop support calculated under section

3 36.631 of the Commission’s regulations (47

4 CFR 36.631), as in effect on the date of enact5 ment of such Act.

6 ‘‘(3) HIGH COST LOOP SUPPORT AND NATION7 WIDE AVERAGE CALCULATIONS.—The Federal Com8 munications Commission shall—

9 ‘‘(A) calculate that portion of the high cost

10 support mechanism attributable to loops that

11 have costs that are in excess of 115 percent of

12 the nationwide average under section 36.631 of

13 the Commission’s regulations (47 CFR 36.631),

14 as in effect on the date of enactment of the

15 Universal Service Sufficiency Act of 2000; and

16 ‘‘(B) calculate the nationwide average

17 unseparated loop cost for purposes of sections

18 36.621(a)(1)–(3) and 36.622 of those regula19 tions (47 CFR 36.621(a)(1)–(3) and 36.622),

20 as in effect on such date of enactment of such

21 Act, taking into account the elimination of the

22 interim cap on total nationwide loop cost ex23 pense adjustments pursuant to paragraph (1) of

24 this subsection.’’.

Æ