alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
402 A.2d 538

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. John Burton SPENCER, Sr., Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Dec. 8, 1978.

Decided April 20, 1979.

*479Thomas G. Klingensmith, Assistant Public Defender, Lancaster, for appellant.

Ronald L. Buckwalter, District Attorney, Lancaster, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, HESTER and HOFFMAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and sentenced to serve three to 23 months imprisonment. The charge stemmed from the shooting of a 16 year old boy on May 14, 1977. On direct appeal, appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to identify him as the perpetrator of the shooting. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. *See Commonwealth v. Hamm,*474 Pa. 487, 378 A.2d 1219 (1977); *Commonwealth v. Eddington,*255 Pa.Super. 25, 25-28, 386 A.2d 117, 117-18 (1978). Our review of the record reveals that appellant was positively and unequivocally identified by three eye witnesses.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
#### § 301-10.303 What am I reimbursed when use of POV is determined by my agency to be advantageous to the Government?

You will be reimbursed an applicable mileage rate based on the type of POV you actually use (privately owned airplane, privately owned automobile, privately owned motorcycle). These rates will be published in an FTR bulletin and are also displayed on GSA's Web site (*https://www.gsa.gov/mileage*).

[FTR Amdt. 2010-07, 75 FR 72967, Nov. 29, 2010, as amended at 85 FR 39848, July 2, 2020]
Served: October 3, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 3rd of October, 2012

Essential Air Service at

AKUTAN, ALASKA

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

DOCKET DOT-OST-2000-7068

NOTICE OF EXTENSION FOR PROPOSALS AT AKUTAN, ALASKA

By Order 2012-8-39, August 31, 2012, the Department requested proposals for Essential Air 

Service (EAS) at Akutan, Alaska, with proposals due October 3, 2012. On October 2, 2012, 

Grant Aviation, Inc., requested a one-week extension to that deadline.

We will grant that extension request. Proposals at Akutan are now due on October 10, 

2012.

Dennis DeVany, Chief,

EAS and Domestic Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at

http://www.regulations.gov
# Comments on: 2018-1039: Max Sound Corporation v. Google LLC
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 26, 2022. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 26, 2022 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A23I0022. LAND-RON, INC. v. MONTE DAVIS.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 18CV12153
§ 50-204.2 General safety and health standards. ( a ) Every contractor shall protect the safety and health of his employees by complying with the standards described in the subparagraphs of this paragraph whenever a standard deals with an occupational safety or health subject or issue involved in the performance of the contract. ( 1 ) U.S. Department of Labor—Title 29 CFR— Part 1501—Safety and Health Regulations for Ship Repairing. Part 1502—Safety and Health Regulations for Shipbuilding. Part 1503—Safety and Health Regulations for Shipbreaking. Part 1504—Safety and Health Regulations for Longshoring. Part 1910—Subpart C through Subpart S (national consensus standards).
( 2 ) U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. ( i ) In Chapter I of Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations, the standards requiring safe and healthful working conditions or surroundings in: Subchapter B—Respiratory Protective Apparatus; Tests for Permissibility; Fees. Subchapter C—Explosives and Related Articles; Tests for Permissibility and Suitability. Subchapter D—Electrical Equipment, Lamps, Methane Detectors; Tests for Permissibility; Fees. Subchapter O—Coal Mine Health and Safety.
( ii ) In Chapter II of Title 30 the standards requiring safe and healthful working conditions or surroundings in: Part 211—Coal-Mining Operating and Safety Regulations. Part 216—Operating and Safety Regulations Governing the Mining of Coal in Alaska. Part 221—Oil and Gas Operating Regulations. Part 231—Operating and Safety Regulations Governing the Mining of Potash; Oil Shale, Sodium, and Phosphate; Sulphur; and Gold, Silver, or Quicksilver; and Other Nonmetallic Minerals, Including Silica Sand.
( 3 ) U.S. Department of Transportation: 49 CFR parts 171-179 and 14 CFR part 103 Hazardous material regulation—Transportation of compressed gases.
( 4 ) U.S. Department of Agriculture Respiratory Devices for Protection against Certain Pesticides—ARS-33-76-2.
( b ) Information concerning the applicability of the standards prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section may be obtained from the following offices: ( 1 ) Office of the Bureau of Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, Railway Labor Building, Washington, DC 20210.
( 2 ) The regional and field offices of the Bureau of Labor Standards which are listed in the U.S. Government Organization Manual, 1970-71 edition at p. 324.
( c ) In applying the safety and health standards referred to in paragraph (a) of this section the Secretary may add to, strengthen or otherwise modify any standards whenever he considers that the standards do not adequately protect the safety and health of employees as required by the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act.
[34 FR 7946, May 20, 1969, as amended at 36 FR 9868, May 29, 1971]
#### § 302-3.300 Must my agency pay for return relocation expenses for my immediate family and me once I have completed my duty OCONUS?

Yes, once you have completed your duty OCONUS as specified in your service agreement, your agency must pay one-way transportation expenses for you, for your family member(s), and for your household goods (see Table F in § 302-3.101 for a summary of allowances).

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended at 86 FR 73684, Dec. 28, 2021]
§ 301-10.110 When must I use a contract City Pair Program fare? If you are an employee of an agency as defined in § 301-1.1 of this chapter, you must use a contract City Pair Program fare for scheduled air passenger transportation service unless one of the limited exceptions in § 301-10.111 exists. Note 1 to § 301-10.110 :
When a contract City Pair Program carrier offers a lower cost capacity-controlled coach class contract fare (_CA) and an unrestricted coach class contract fare (YCA), you must use the lower cost capacity-controlled fare when it is advantageous and meets mission needs. A listing of contract City Pair Program fares is available at *https://www.gsa.gov/citypairs .*
Note 2 to § 301-10.110 :
Employees of the Government of the District of Columbia, with the exception of the District of Columbia Courts, are not eligible to use contract City Pair Program fares even though these employees otherwise may be covered by the FTR.
[FTR Case 2020-300-1, 87 FR 55704, Sept. 12, 2022]
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


November 7, 2019


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


SmartTrust 450 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:





The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trust (the “Trust”) included in
the Registration Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date
hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on November 6, 2019, in
accordance with the valuation method set forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We
consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the
Registration Statement (No. 333-233547) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the
sale of the Units of the Trust and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.







	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO
	 	Gerardo Cipriano
	 	Vice President
§ 301-73.101 How must we prepare to implement ETS? Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 77028 , Sept. 20, 2024.
You must prepare to implement ETS as expeditiously as possible by— ( a ) Developing a migration plan and schedule to deploy ETS across your agency as early as possible with full deployment required no later than September 30, 2006;
( b ) Requiring employees to use your ETS unless you approve an exception under § 301-50.6, § 301-73.102 or § 301-73.104;
( c ) Establishing goals, plans and procedures to maximize agency-wide traveler use of your online self-service booking tool once you have fully deployed ETS within your agency. These goals, plans, and procedures should be available for submission to the ETS PMO upon its request.
Note 1 to § 301-73.101 :
Your agency should work with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to allocate budget and personnel resources to support ETS migration and data exchange. Your agency is responsible for providing the funds required to establish interfaces between the ETS standard data output and applicable business systems (e.g., financial, human resources, etc.).
Note 2 to § 301-73.101 :
Best practices show that organizations are able to realize significant benefits once they achieve a 70 percent or greater self-booking rate.
[FTR Amdt. 2006-04, 71 FR 49375, Aug. 23, 2006]
353P15

#### Carolyn Joyner Driggers, Individually and as Co-Trust and Co-Beneficiary of the Barney G. Joyner Family Trust, and Phyllis M. Joyner, by and through Carolyn Driggers as Attorney-in-Fact v. David Lee Joyner and Ronald Dorrestein

1. Pit’s (Carolyn Joyner Driggers) Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA (COA15-434)

1. Denied

2. Pit’s (Carolyn Joyner Driggers) Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of Superior Court of Wake County

2. Denied

3. Defs’ Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*

3. Allowed 10/27/2015
#### § 109-40.112 Transportation factors in the location of Government facilities.

Transportation rate, charges, and commercial carrier transportation services shall be considered and evaluated prior to the selection of new site locations and during the planning and construction phases in the establishment of leased or relocated Government installations or facilities to ensure that consideration is given to the various transportation factors that may be involved in this relocation or deactivation.
No. 10-11132.

#### James *v.*McCall, Warden.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
1 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-1406

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Eduardo Rodriguez-Rodriguez, also * known as Eddie Randy Rodriguez, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 4, 2001 Filed: October 10, 2001

___________ Before BYE, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Eduardo Rodriguez-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court 1 sentenced Rodriguez-Rodriguez to 96 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. On appeal, his attorney has filed a brief and moved to withdraw under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).-2- Counsel argues that the district court should have granted a downward departure; however, counsel did not move for one below, and we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in declining to grant a departure sua sponte. See United States v. Montanye , 996 F.2d 190, 192 (8th Cir. 1993) (en banc). Having found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal upon our independent review pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel's motion to withdraw. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 10-11019.

#### Jones *v.*Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### AUGUSTUS C. BECHSTEIN and WILLIAM P. ROSS, Appellants, *v.*CHARLES A. SAMMIS, Sheriff, etc., Respondent.

*Action against sheriff, for failure to return execution*— return *of, nulla Iona after commencement of action*— effect *of.*

After the commencement of an action, brought against the sheriff for a failure to return an execution within sixty days, he returned the same indorsed *nulla tona.*Upon the trial the plaintiff proved the issuing of the execution, and its return and indorsement after the commencement of the action. *Held,*

That as the return was made by a public officer of an official act he was bound by law to make, it was evidence in favor of the officer making it.

That its admissibility was not affected by the fact that it was made after the commencement of the action.

That as the plaintiffs did not contradict the return, he was entitled to recover only nominal damages.

Appeal from a judgment for costs in favor of the defendant, entered upon the report of a referee.

*Eckowrd J. Cramer,*for the appellants.

*John, J. Armst/rong,*for the respondent.

Barnard, P. J.:

The plaintiffs, on the 28th September, 1875, recovered a verdict against Henry Hodfield and John W. Hodfield for $3,071.04. On the next day an execution was delivered to the sheriff of Queens county, where a transcript of the judgment had been filed. The sheriff did not return the execution within the sixty days. The plaintiffs brought this action against him for this neglect. After the action was brought, and before its trial, the sheriff returned the execution to the clerk’s office with his return of *nulla Iona*indorsed thereon. Upon the trial the plaintiff proved the judgment, the issuing and delivery to the sheriff of the execution, and produced and read in evidence a certified copy of the execution so returned, with the indorsement thereon. The plaintiff offered no other evidence, and the.referee gave judgment for the plaintiff for six cents. The plaintiff appeals, and the only question presented is as to the effect *586of tbe sheriff’s return. Tbe return was made by a pubhc officer of an official act be was bound by law to make. Sucb return is evidence in favor of tbe officer making it. *(Browning*v. *Hanford,*5 Den., 586; *Board of Water Commissioners*v. Lansing, 45 N. Y., 19; *Russel*v. *Gray,*11 Barb., 541; *Henderson*v. *Cairns,*14 Barb., 15.) It is evidence, notwithstanding it was made after tbe commencement of tbe action. *(Glover*v. *Whittenhall,*2 Den., 633 ; *Birkbeck*v. *Stafford,*14 Abbot Pr. Rep., 285.) When tbe plaintiff rested be bad proven a cause of action against tbe sheriff, and that be bad suffered only nominal damages.

It was competent for him to have contradicted tbe return, which is only *prima facie*evidence of its truth. Not having done so, tbe judgment is right, and should be affirmed with costs.

Gilbert and Dtkman, JJ., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
No. 11-783.

#### Brown *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### § 302-3.512 How many times are we required to pay for an employee's return travel?

You must pay for return travel and transportation of an employee only once at the end of each agreed period of service.
17 March 2016

061P16

#### State v. Carlton Washington Tomlinson

1. Defs Motion for Temporary Stay (COA15-S85)

1. Allowed 02/25/2016

2. Defs Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

*2.*

3. Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

3.
# **Exhibit 10.13**

 

MLANo. E539A

 

**AMENDMENT**

 

                **THISAMENDMENT** is entered into as of October 16, 2001, between **CoBANK, ACB**(“CoBank”) and **DAKOTA GROWERS PASTA COMPANY, Carrington, North Dakota** (the“Company”).

 

#### **BACKGROUND**

 

                CoBankand the Company are parties to a Master Loan Agreement dated June 20, 2001(such agreement, as previously amended, is hereinafter referred to as the“MLA”).  CoBank and the Company nowdesire to amend the MLA.  For thatreason, and for valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of whichare hereby acknowledged), CoBank and the Company agree as follows:

 

1.     Section 10(C) of the MLA is hereby amendedand restated to read as follows:

 

**SECTION10.  Financial Covenants.**  Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, whilethis agreement is in effect:

 

**        (C)                DebtService Coverage Ratio.**  The Company and its consolidated Subsidiary,on a combined basis, will have at the end of each fiscal year of the Company, a"Debt Service Coverage Ratio" (as defined below) for that year of notless than 1.50 to 1.  For purposeshereof, the term "Debt Service Coverage Ratio" shall mean thefollowing (all as calculated for the applicable year in accordance with GAAPconsistently applied):  (i) net income(after taxes), minus cash patronage refunds and dividends payable in subsequentfiscal year based on the current fiscal year’s net income, minus patronageincome, minus retains revolved, plus equity retains, plus depreciation andamortization, plus lease payments, plus (or minus) extraordinary losses (orgains); to (ii) all principal payments due within the year on all long-termdebt, plus lease payments.

 

Except as set forth inthis amendment, the MLA, including all amendments thereto, shall continue infull force and effect as written.

 

 

**                INWITNESS WHEREOF**, the parties havecaused this amendment to be executed by their duly authorized officers as ofthe date shown above.

 
| **CoBANK, ACB** |                           | **DAKOTA GROWERS PASTA COMPANY** |
|-----------------|--------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|            |                           |                             |   |   |
| By:             | /s/ Rebecca Kennedy            |                             | By: | /s/ Thomas Friezen |
|            |                           |                             |   |   |
| Title:          | Assistant Corporate  Secretary |                             | Title: | CFO |
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 786

To terminate the participation of the Forest Service in the Recreational

Fee Demonstration Program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1999

Mrs. BONO (for herself, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. COOK, Mrs. EMERSON, and Mr.

DEFAZIO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture,

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 terminate the participation of the Forest Service in the

Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.

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 ‘‘Forest Tax Relief

5 Act’’.
2

•HR 786 IH

1 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF RECREATIONAL FEE DEM2 ONSTRATION PROGRAM FOR THE FOREST

3 SERVICE.

4 (a) TERMINATION.—On and after the effective date

5 of this section, the Secretary of Agriculture may not im6 pose or collect any fee under the authority of the Rec7 reational Fee Demonstration Program authorized by sec8 tion 315 of the Department of the Interior and Related

9 Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (section 101(c) of Pub10 lic Law 104–134; 16 U.S.C. 460l–6a note). Amounts col11 lected before that date shall continue to be used by the

12 Secretary in the manner provided in that section.

13 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 315 of the

14 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appro15 priations Act, 1996 (section 101(c) of Public Law 104–

16 134; 16 U.S.C. 460l–6a note), is amended as follows:

17 (1) In subsection (a), by striking ‘‘and the Sec18 retary of Agriculture (acting through the Forest

19 Service) shall each’’ and inserting ‘‘shall’’.

20 (2) In subsection (b), by striking ‘‘appropriate

21 Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘Secretary’’.

22 (2) In subsection (e), by striking ‘‘and the Sec23 retary of Agriculture’’.
3

•HR 786 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section and the amend2 ments made by this section shall take effect 10 days after

3 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
§ 301-75.103 What are our responsibilities when we authorize an interviewee to use common carrier transportation to perform pre-employment interview travel? You must provide the interviewee with one of the following: ( a ) A common carrier ticket;
( b ) A GTR; or
( c ) A point of contact with your travel management center to arrange the common carrier transportation. In this instance, you must notify the travel management center that the interviewee is authorized to receive a ticket for the trip;
( d ) Written instructions explaining your procedures and the liability of the interviewee for controlling and accounting for passenger transportation documents, if common carrier transportation is required;
( e ) A credit/refund address for any common carrier transportation provided for unused government furnished tickets.
[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15980, Apr. 1, 1998; 63 FR 35538, June 30, 1998]