alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### J. W. Bingham v. Frank W. Hartley.

Filed April 5, 1895.

No. 5255.

Instructions: Burden of Proof: Harmless Error: Review. An instruction is not of necessity prejudicially erroneous because its meaning is obscure; and although therein the burden of proof is unintelligibly defined, a cause will not therefore be *683reversed when the record shows that another instruction was given which, with clearness, placed such burden upon the defendant in error.

Error from the district court of Colfax county. Tried below before Sullivan, J.

*Phelps & Sabin,*for plaintiff in error.

*Grimison & Thomas, contra.*

Ryan, C.

This action, brought by the defendant in error for the recovery of the amount of a board bill, was originally tried before a justice of the peace of Colfax county. Afterwards, an appeal having been taken to the district court of said county, there was rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant in error for the sum of $84 on a verdict for the same amount. In the petition in error there are assigned with such distinctness as to entitle to consideration but two errors argued in the brief of plaintiff in error. The first of these is that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence. A careful perusal of the bill of exceptions shows that this assignment is not well founded. The other assignment is directed against the ninth instruction given in the following language: “The burden of proof does not depend altogether, nor to any definite extent, upon the number of witnesses testifying for the respective parties, but rather upon the persuasiveness of the evidence furnished by such witnesses.” It is highly probable that when the district judge wrote this instruction he had in mind a definite proposition which he intended to state with clearness. In this however, he failed. The jury from this instruction could have obtained no light as to the burden of proof. If the court intended in this instruction to state that the weight of the testimony on each side was dependent upon the conditions enumerated, the idea was quite correct. Probably the *684jury so understood the instruction, in which event no harm was done. Whether this is true or not it is scarcely possible that the jury could have acted under a mistaken understanding of the burden of proof, for, immediately following the above, there was a clear instruction that the burden of proving the reasonable value of the board and lodging , was upon the plaintiff, and that there should, if the jury found for the plaintiff, be an allowance of such sum as by a preponderance of the evidence the board and lodging had been shown to be worth. Under these conditions we cannot believe that plaintiff in error was prejudiced by the giving of the instructions complained of, and the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.
LIFE CYCLE COST OF PACKAGED SYSTEM CENTRAL A/C - SAMPLE CALCULATION (AVG VALUES), January 2000

 Dollar Values in 1998 $ E

LIST INPUTS Age Year A

ELECTRICITY PRICE (cent/kWh) Average Marginal 1998 

ENERGY PRICE PROJECTION START YEAR Year of Purchase 2006 7.08 6.26 

Year Equip. Retires 2023 6.89 6.09 1 2006 

2 2007 

BASE CASE DESIGN PRICE OPTION 3 2008 

SEER 10 CHANGE SEER 13 4 2009 

5 2010 

STANDARD CASE DESIGN Total Installed Price $2,607 $425 16% $3,032 6 2011 

Annual Repair & Maint. $70 $1 1% $71 7 2012 Compressor Repl. Cost $278 $82 29% $360 8 2013 

9 2014 

Annual kWh Use 806 -186 -23% 620 Payback 10 2015 

LIFETIME (years) 18.4 % SHIPMENT Annual Operating Cost (years) 11 2016 

DISCOUNT RATE 4.2% Comm. 10% 2006 $127 -$11 -8% $117 40.0 12 2017 

 Resd. 90% 13 2018 

HOUSEHOLD ELEC PRICE IN 1998 Cumulative Cash Flow $5,207 $315 6% $5,522 14 2019 

(cent/kWh) Average 7.62 Life-Cycle Cost ($) $4,365 $339 8% $4,704 15 2020 

Marginal 6.73 16 2021 

17 2022 

HOUSEHOLD UEC (kWh) 965 18 2023 

HOUSEHOLD SEER 8.4 19 2024 

20 2025 21 2026 22 2027 23 2028 24 2029 25 2030 

AEO 2000 - Reference Case 2006

Baseline (SEER=10)20% Impr. (SEER=12)

Fuel Price 

Comparion

Show Plot

Show Inputs

Update

Price 

Multiplier

Mark Up's

Split System

Rev Engr
§ 10.450 Geographic targeting. This section establishes minimum requirements for the geographic targeting of Alert Messages. ( a ) This section establishes minimum requirements for the geographic targeting of Alert Messages. A Participating CMS Provider will determine which of its network facilities, elements, and locations will be used to geographically target Alert Messages. A Participating CMS Provider must deliver any Alert Message that is specified by a circle or polygon to an area that matches the specified circle or polygon. A Participating CMS Provider is considered to have matched the target area when they deliver an Alert Message to 100 percent of the target area with no more than 0.1 of a mile overshoot. If some or all of a Participating CMS Provider's network infrastructure is technically incapable of matching the specified target area, then that Participating CMS Provider must deliver the Alert Message to an area that best approximates the specified target area on and only on those aspects of its network infrastructure that are incapable of matching the target area. A Participating CMS Provider's network infrastructure may be considered technically incapable of matching the target area in limited circumstances, including when the target area is outside of the Participating CMS Provider's network coverage area, when mobile devices have location services disabled, and when legacy networks or devices cannot be updated to support this functionality.
( b ) Upon request from an emergency management agency, a Participating CMS Provider will disclose information regarding their capabilities for geo-targeting Alert Messages. A Participating CMS Provider is only required to disclose this information to an emergency management agency insofar as it would pertain to Alert Messages initiated by that emergency management agency, and only so long as the emergency management agency offers confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by the federal FOIA.
( c ) In matching the target area, Participating CMS Providers may not limit the availability of 360 characters for the Alert Message text.
[81 FR 75726, Nov. 1, 2016, as amended at 83 FR 8623, Feb. 28, 2018]
[Civ. No. 15613.

Second Dist., Div. Two.

Dec. 13, 1946.]

#### Guardianship of the Person and Estate of AMALIA M. BLACKWELL, an Incompetent Person. AMALIA M. BLACKWELL et al., Respondents, v. JOHN H. BLACKWELL, Appellant.

John J. McMahon for Appellant.

Morris C. Schrager and Martin Forrest for Respondents.

MOORE, P. J.

March 12, 1945, Amalia M. Blackwell was adjudged an incompetent. The Security First National Bank of Los Angeles was appointed guardian of her estate and Olga Hogane, a sister, was made guardian of her person. Pursuant to her own petition she was by order of the court entered on May 21,1946, restored to capacity and mental competency. Her husband, John H. Blackwell, who objected.to her petition, brings the matter here by appeal from the last mentioned order.

The only appeals authorized in guardianship proceedings are those “from an order granting or revoking letters of guardianship; settling an account of a guardian; instructing or directing a guardian; or refusing to make any order heretofore mentioned in this section.” (Prob. Code, § 1630.) The order restoring an incompetent to capacity is not one of the appealable orders mentioned in the cited section. The jurisdiction of this court in probate proceedings cannot be extended to orders or judgments not made appealable by the Probate Code. *(Guardianship of Morro,*36 Cal.App.2d 623, 627 [98 *283P.2d 552] ; *Guardianship of Reser,*57 Cal.App.2d 935, 936 [135 P.2d 709].) Section 1233, Probate Code, is not applicable inasmuch as appeals in guardianship matters are governed by-section 1630, *supra.*

It is ordered that this appeal be and it is hereby dismissed.

McComb, J., and Wilson, J., concurred.
188P16

#### State v. Timothy Allen Foxworth

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA15-1092)

1. Dismissed

2. Def’s *Pro Se*PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

2. Denied

3. Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Decision of COA

3. Denied

4. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Subpoena *Duces Tecum*

4. Dismissed as moot

Ervin, J.,

recused
#### § 30.402 Frequency tolerance.

The carrier frequency of each transmitter authorized under this subpart must be maintained within the following percentage of the reference frequency (unless otherwise specified in the instrument of station authorization the reference frequency will be deemed to be the assigned frequency):

| Frequency (MHz) | Frequency tolerance (percent) |
| --- | --- |
| 27,500 to 28,350 | 0.001 |
| 38,600 to 40,000 | 0.03 |
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4610 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4610

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 
of self-administered betaseron treatments for multiple sclerosis under 
             the Medicare program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 21, 1994

 Mr. LaFalce introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly 
      to the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 
of self-administered betaseron treatments for multiple sclerosis under 
             the Medicare program, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Multiple Sclerosis Home Treatment 
Equity Act of 1994''.

SEC. 2. COVERAGE AND PAYMENT OF SELF-ADMINISTERED BETASERON UNDER 
              MEDICARE.

    Section 1861(s)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395x(s)(2)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (P);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (Q) 
        and adding in lieu thereof, ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(R) betaseron (Interferon beta-1b) for patients 
                with multiple sclerosis competent to use such 
                biological without medical or other supervision with 
                respect to the administration of such biological, 
                subject to methods and standards established by the 
                Secretary by regulation for the safe and effective use 
                of such biological, and terms related to the 
                administration of such biological.''.

SEC. 3. REGULATIONS.

    The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, not later than 
150 days after the date of enactment of this Act, issue final 
regulations setting forth standards and methods for safe and effective 
use of betaseron for purposes of payments under section 2 of this Act.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 2 of this Act shall apply to 
payments for items and services furnished on or after October 1, 1994.

                                 <all>
```
§ 27.1420 Cost-sharing formula. ( a ) For space station transition and Relocation Payment Clearinghouse costs, and in the event the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau selects a Relocation Coordinator pursuant to § 27.1413(a), Relocation Coordinator costs, the *pro rata* share of each flexible-use licensee will be the sum of the final clock phase prices (*P*) for the set of all license blocks that a bidder wins divided by the total final clock phase prices for all *N* license blocks sold in the auction. To determine a licensee's reimbursement obligation (*RO*), that *pro rata* share would then be multiplied by the total eligible reimbursement costs (*RC*). Mathematically, this is represented as:
( b ) For incumbent earth stations and fixed service incumbent licensee transition costs, a flexible-use licensee's *pro rata* share will be determined on a PEA-specific basis, based on the final clock phase prices for the license blocks it won in each PEA. To calculate the *pro rata* share for incumbent earth station transition costs in a given PEA, the same formula identified in § 27.1412(a) will be used, except *I* is the set of licenses a bidder won in the PEA, *N* is the total blocks sold in the PEA and *RC* is the PEA-specific earth station and fixed service relocation costs.
( c ) For the Phase I accelerated relocation payments, the *pro rata* share of each flexible use licensee of the 3.7 to 3.8 MHz in the 46 PEAs that are cleared by December 5, 2021, will be the sum of the final clock phase prices (*P*) that the licensee won divided by the total final clock phase prices for all *M* license blocks sold in those 46 PEAs. To determine a licensee's *RO* the *pro rata* share would then be multiplied by the total accelerated relocation payment due for Phase I, *A1.* Mathematically, this is represented as:
( d ) For Phase II accelerated relocation payments, the *pro rata* share of each flexible use licensee will be the sum of the final clock phase prices (*P*) that the licensee won in the entire auction, divided by the total final clock phase prices for all *N* license blocks sold in the auction. To determine a licensee's *RO* the *pro rata* share would then be multiplied by the total accelerated relocation payment due for Phase II, *A2.* Mathematically, this is represented as:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bowman, 127 Ohio St.3d 1250, 2010-Ohio-6086.]

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BOWMAN. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bowman, 127 Ohio St.3d 1250, 2010-Ohio6086.] 

(No. 2006-0444 — Submitted November 17, 2010 — Decided 

November 24, 2010.) 

ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an 

application for reinstatement by respondent, Kevin Arthur Bowman, Attorney 

Registration No. 0068223, last known business address in Dayton, Ohio. 

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of August 23, 2006, 

wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a 

period of two years with conditions to reinstatement, finds that respondent has 

substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. 

V(10)(A). Therefore, 

{¶ 3} It is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to the 

practice of law in the state of Ohio. 

{¶ 4} It is further ordered that the Clerk of this court issue certified 

copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be 

made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the 

costs of publication. 

{¶ 5} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Bowman, 110 Ohio 

St.3d 480, 2006-Ohio-4333, 854 N.E.2d 480. 

 BROWN, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

______________________
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.10016 How do I apply for special temporary authority? ( a ) Requests for Special Temporary Authority (STA) may be filed via ICFS for most services. We encourage you to file STA applications through ICFS as it will ensure faster receipt of your request.
( b ) For specific information on the content of your request, refer to §§ 25.120 and 63.25 of this chapter.
[69 FR 29895, May 26, 2004, as amended at 88 FR 21438, Apr. 10, 2023]
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 20, 2019. 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, November 20, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20I0097. A & M HOSPITALITIES, L.L.C. et al. v. PRENITA ALIMCHANDANI.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2017CV1670
(365) 

Volume 3 of 3, Part B 

VIII. EXHIBITS ADMITTED 

(IN NUMERICAL ORDER) 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
374 
375 
376 
377 
378 
379 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 
390 
391 
392 
393 
394 
395 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 
403 
404 
405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 
413 
414 
415 
416 
417 
418 
419 
420 
421 
422 
423 
424 
425 
426 
427 
428 
429 
430 
431 
432 
433 
434 
435 
436 
437 
438 
439 
440 
441 
442 
443 
444 
445 
446 
447 
448 
449 
450 
451 
452 
453 
454 
455 
456 
457 
458 
459 
460 
461 
462 
463 
464 
465 
466 
467 
468 
469 
470 
471 
472 
473 
474 
475 
476 
477 
478 
479 
480 
481 
482 
483 
484 
485 
486 
487 
488 
489 
490 
491 
492 
493 
494 
495 
496 
497 
498 
499 
500 
501 
502 
503 
504 
505 
506 
507 
508 
509 
510 
511 
512 
513 
514 
515 
516 
517 
518 
519 
520 
521 
522 
523 
524 
525 
526 
527 
528 
529 
530 
531 
532 
533 
534
No. 11-237.

#### Lujan *v.*Texas.

Ct. App. Tex., 8th Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-5378.

#### Williams *v.*Salazar, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 500.4 Scope of NTIA review of FirstNet proposed fees.

NTIA shall approve FirstNet proposed fees only if such fees, when combined with any non-fee-based income projected to be received by FirstNet, are sufficient, but do not exceed the amount necessary, to recoup FirstNet's projected total expenses in carrying out its powers, duties, and responsibilities under 47 U.S.C. 1401 *et seq.* for the fiscal year involved.
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 Annual Report of Capital Corp of the West (the "Company")
        on
        Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas T. Hawker,
        President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
        18
        U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002, that:





(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.




















Date:
                March 14, 2006
            
            
            
            /s/
                Thomas T. HawkerTHOMAS
                T. HAWKERDirector/CEO
                andPrincipal
                Executive Officer
§ 27.1176 Cost-sharing requirements for AWS in the 2150-2160/62 MHz band. ( a ) Frequencies in the 2150-2160/62 MHz band have been reallocated from the Broadband Radio Service (BRS) to AWS. All AWS entities who benefit from another AWS entity's clearance of BRS incumbents from this spectrum, including BRS incumbents occupying the 2150-2162 MHz band on a primary basis, must contribute to such relocation costs. Only AWS entrants that relocate BRS incumbents are entitled to such reimbursement.
( b ) AWS entities may satisfy their reimbursement requirement by entering into private cost-sharing agreements or agreeing to terms other than those specified in § 27.1180. However, AWS entities are required to reimburse other AWS entities that incur relocation costs and are not parties to the alternative agreement. In addition, parties to a private cost-sharing agreement may seek reimbursement through the clearinghouse (as discussed in § 27.1178) from AWS entities that are not parties to the agreement. The cost-sharing plan is in effect during all phases of BRS relocation until the end of the period specified in § 27.1190. If an AWS licensee enters into a spectrum leasing arrangement and the spectrum lessee triggers a cost-sharing obligation, the licensee is the AWS entity responsible for satisfying cost-sharing obligations under these rules.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Carl A. Pelzel, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report of Depomed, Inc.;

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(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officers 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 function):



March 8,
2010

By:

/s/ CARL A. PELZEL Carl A. Pelzel Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>



                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

                              Jurisdiction of                Trade Name(s)
      Name                     Incorporation                   (if any)
      ----                     -------------                   --------



Caribiner, Inc.                 New York               Caribiner International
                                                       Caribiner Communications
                                                       Right Source

Caribiner Intellectual
Property Management, Inc.       Delaware




Caribiner Audio Visual
Services, Inc.                  Delaware               Hospitality Resources
                                                       Presentation Services
                                                       Executive Express
                                                       Audio Visual Headquarters


Caribiner Services Limited      England and Wales

Caribiner Europe Limited        England and Wales

Caribiner Holdings UK
No. 2 Limited                   England and Wales




Caribiner Holdings UK
Limited                         England Wales          Caribiner International
                                                       Spectrum
                                                       MWA
                                                       WCT Live Communication

Visual Action Holdings
Limited                         England and Wales

Visual Action Holdings Inc.    Delaware