alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### RICHARD L. HUNTER and ANDREW HUNTER, as Executors, etc., of RICHARD HUNTER, Deceased, Respondents, *v.*ISAAC D. WETSELL, JOHN VAN O’LINDA and JOHN QUACKENBUSH, Appellants.

*Payment by cheek*— taking *a contract out of the statute of frauds.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of tbe plaintiffs, entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial made upon the minutes of the justice before whom the action was tried.

The action was to recover the purchase-price of a quantity of hops, alleged to have been purchased by defendants of plaintiffs’ testator.

The court at General Term said : “Assuming as we must that the law of this case was properly laid down by the Commission of Appeals, when it was before that court (57 N. Y., 375), the plaintiffs have obviated the objections then taken by the new evidence now offered. It now appears that the contract was complete between the parties when the $200 was paid. By that contract the quantity of hops was fixed at 2,370 pounds, the price at fifty cents per pound and ten dollars in addition. The defendants were to go out and take the hops away the next week, and $200 were paid towards the purchase-price. So the jury has found ujion competent evidence and the evidence is conclusive, as to the fact upon this court. So the contract is not void by the statute of frauds.

‘1 The payment was by the check of defendants. It is now claimed that a payment by check, which is afterwards presented to the bank on which it is drawn and paid, is not a payment at the time of making of the contract, within the statute of frauds. No authority to sustain this proposition is citied, and we cannot yield to it our assent. Undoubtedly the giving of a check is not absolute payment, but when it is received as such, and is afterwards paid as in this case, it becomes a good and valid payment as of the time when it was given. Such is the universal custom and usage, and *136any different rule would greatly embarrass trade and commerce. *(Gould*v. *Town of Oneonta,*71 N. Y., 307.)”

*J. II. Glute,*for tbe appellants. *F. W Paige,*for tbe respondents.

Opinion by

Boardman, J.,

Learned, P. J., and Bocees, J., concurred.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7510

BARRY HALL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GENE JOHNSON, Deputy Director Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CA-01-865-2)

Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 23, 2002

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barry Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Barry Hall appeals the district court’s order denying relief

on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Hall v. Johnson, No. CA-01-

865-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2002). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

131316 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. VIRGINIA CLULEY, and Stephen J. Markman, DAVID CLULEY, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 131316 COA: 264208 Ingham CC: 03-002186-CK LANSING BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT, and JOHN ELASHKAR, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 7, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l0122 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 29, 2007

Clerk
Motion Denied; Order filed January 13, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00455-CR

____________

GREGORIO MORENO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1406639

ORDER

Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, Vivian R. King. Appellant’s 

brief was originally due August 20, 2014. We granted a total of more than 90 days 

extension of time to file appellant’s brief until December 5, 2014. When we 

granted the last extension, we noted that no further extensions would be granted 

absent exceptional circumstances. No brief was filed. On December 18, 2014, 

counsel filed a further request for extension of time to file appellant’s brief stating 
that a brief would be filed December 31, 2014. No brief was filed. On January 6, 

2015, appellant filed a further request for extension of time to file appellant’s brief 

stating the brief would be filed by January 12, 2015. Counsel did not allege any 

exceptional circumstances in the request. 

We deny the request for extension and issue the following order.

Accordingly, we order Vivian R. King to file a brief with the clerk of this 

Court on or before February 5, 2015. If counsel does not timely file appellant’s 

brief as ordered, the Court will issue an order abating the appeal and directing the 

trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the 

brief and the consideration of sanctions, appointment of new counsel, or other 

appropriate relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Donovan, and Wise.
§ 90.475 Operation of internal transmitter control systems in specially equipped systems. ( a ) An internal transmitter control system need not be designed to meet the requirements of § 90.473 if it meets the following requirements: ( 1 ) All operating positions must be located on premises controlled by the licensee.
( 2 ) An internal transmitter control system may be used in conjunction with other approved methods of transmitter control and interconnection so long as the internal transmitter control system, itself, is neither accessed from telephone positions in the public switched telephone network (PSTN), nor uses dial-up circuits in the PSTN. Licensees with complex communications systems involving fixed systems whose base stations are controlled by such systems may automatically access these base stations through the microwave or operational fixed systems from positions in the PSTN, so long as the base stations and mobile units meet the requirements of § 90.483 and if a separate circuit is provided for each mode of transmitter operation (*i.e.*, conventional, dial-up or Internet).
( 3 ) The system must be designed so that upon completion of a transmission, the base station transmitter(s) will close down automatically within 3 seconds.
( 4 ) To guard against malfunctions, the system must also be designed so that the base station(s) will be deactivated by an automatic timing device when a modulated signal is not transmitted for a period of three (3) consecutive minutes.
( 5 ) The system must include automatic monitoring equipment, installed at the base station transmitter site(s), which will prevent the activation of the system when signals of other co-channel stations are present.
( b ) [Reserved]
[43 FR 54791, Nov. 22, 1978, as amended at 44 FR 67125, Nov. 23, 1979; 47 FR 17521, Apr. 23, 1982; 72 FR 35199, June 27, 2007]
§ 80.319 Radiotelegraph distress call and message transmission procedure. ( a ) The radiotelegraph distress procedure consists of the following six steps: however, when time is vital, the first and second steps may be omitted. These two steps of the distress procedure may also be omitted in circumstances when transmission of the alarm signal is considered unnecessary: ( 1 ) The radiotelegraph alarm signal;
( 2 ) The distress call and an interval of two minutes;
( 3 ) The distress call;
( 4 ) The distress message;
( 5 ) Two dashes of ten to fifteen seconds each;
( 6 ) The call sign of the mobile station in distress.
( b ) The radiotelegraph distress transmissions must be sent by means of the international Morse code at a speed not exceeding 16 words per minute nor less than 8 words per minute.
( c ) The distress message, preceded by the distress call, must be repeated at intervals until an answer is received. The radiotelegraph alarm signal may also be repeated, if necessary.
( d ) The transmissions under paragraphs (a) (5) and (6) of this section, which are to permit direction finding stations to determine the position of the station in distress, may be repeated at frequent intervals if necessary.
( e ) When the mobile station in distress receives no answer to a distress message transmitted on the distress frequency, the message may be repeated on any other available frequency on which attention might be attracted.
[51 FR 31213, Sept. 2, 1986, as amended at 69 FR 64674, Nov. 8, 2004]
#### § 54.1811 Recordkeeping requirements.

Participating providers shall maintain records to document compliance with all Commission requirements governing the Affordable Connectivity Program for the six full preceding calendar years and provide that documentation to the Commission or Administrator, or their designee, upon request. Participating providers shall maintain the documentation related to the eligibility determination and reimbursement claims for an Affordable Connectivity Program subscriber for as long as the subscriber receives the Affordable Connectivity Program discount from that participating provider, but for no less than the six full preceding calendar years.
§ 61.201 Detariffing of price cap local exchange carriers. ( a ) Price cap local exchange carriers shall remove from their interstate tariffs: ( 1 ) Any packet-based business data service;
( 2 ) Any circuit-based business data service above the DS3 bandwidth level;
( 3 ) Any transport services as defined in § 69.801(j) of this chapter;
( 4 ) DS1 and DS3 end user channel terminations, and all other tariffed special access services, in any market deemed competitive as defined in § 69.801; and
( 5 ) DS1 and DS3 end user channel terminations, and all other tariffed special access services, in any grandfathered market as defined in § 69.801 for which the price cap local exchange carrier was granted Phase II pricing flexibility prior to June 2017.
( b ) The detariffing must be completed thirty-six months after August 1, 2017, but detariffing can take place at any time before the thirty-six months is completed.
[82 FR 25711, June 2, 2017, as amended at 84 FR 38579, Aug. 7, 2019]
EXHIBIT 23
<PAGE>


KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
     1000 First Interstate Center
     401 N. 31st Street
     P.O. Box 7108
     Billings, MT 59103



                        Independent Accountants' Consent
                        --------------------------------

The Board of Directors
Crazy Woman Creek Bancorp Incorporated

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statement  (No.
333-53543) of Crazy Woman Creek Bancorp Incorporated of our report dated October
23,  1998  relating  to the  consolidated  balance  sheets of Crazy  Woman Creek
Bancorp  Incorporated  and subsidiary as of September 30, 1998  and 1997 and the
related consolidated statements of income,  stockholders' equity, and cash flows
for the years then ended,  which report appears in the September 30, 1998 annual
report on Form 10-KSB of Crazy Woman Creek Bancorp Incorporated.

                                             
                                             /s/KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Billings, Montana
November 15, 1998






                    Member Firm of
                    KPMG International
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,454,434
<SECURITIES>                                   490,957
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,016,262
<ALLOWANCES>                                    91,800
<INVENTORY>                                    743,111
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,103,541
<PP&E>                                       4,627,697
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,410,190
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,772,519
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          944,235
<BONDS>                                        834,253
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    109,590
<COMMON>                                       109,590
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,884,441
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,772,519
<SALES>                                      7,056,072
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,056,072
<CGS>                                        1,212,496
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,212,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,069,673
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              83,472
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,309,569)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,309,569)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,309,569)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.19)
§ 7.11 Information, documentation, and training. ( a ) Manufacturers and service providers shall ensure access to information and documentation it provides to its customers, if readily achievable. Such information and documentation includes user guides, bills, installation guides for end-user installable devices, and product support communications, regarding both the product in general and the accessibility features of the product. Manufacturers shall take such other readily achievable steps as necessary including: ( 1 ) Providing a description of the accessibility and compatibility features of the product upon request, including, as needed, in alternate formats or alternate modes at no additional charge;
( 2 ) Providing end-user product documentation in alternate formats or alternate modes upon request at no additional charge; and
( 3 ) Ensuring usable customer support and technical support in the call centers and service centers which support their products at no additional charge.
( b ) Manufacturers and service providers shall include in general product information the contact method for obtaining the information required by paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) In developing, or incorporating existing training programs, manufacturers and service providers shall consider the following topics: ( 1 ) Accessibility requirements of individuals with disabilities;
( 2 ) Means of communicating with individuals with disabilities;
( 3 ) Commonly used adaptive technology used with the manufacturer's products;
( 4 ) Designing for accessibility; and
( 5 ) Solutions for accessibility and compatibility.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 22, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 48980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7075]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Advisory Committee on CARES Business Plan Studies; Notice of 
Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the 
Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory 
Committee on CARES Business Plan Studies will meet on Friday, September 
8, 2006, from 9 a.m. until 3 p.m., in the Dining Room of the Nursing 
Home Care Unit, Building 90, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, 4951 
Arroyo Road, Livermore, CA. The meeting is open to the public.
    The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs on proposed business plans at those VA facility 
sites identified in May 2004 as requiring further study by the Capital 
Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) Decision document.
    The objectives of the Local Advisory Panel meeting are to 
communicate the Secretary's decision on the specific options to be 
evaluated and the timeframe for the completion of the study. Additional 
presentations will focus on the VA-selected contractor's methodology 
and tools to evaluate the remaining options. The agenda will also 
accommodate public commentary on implementation issues associated with 
each option.
    Interested persons may attend and present oral or written 
statements to the Committee. For additional information regarding the 
meeting, please contact Mr. Jay Halpern, Designated Federal Officer, 
(00CARES), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20024, by phone at 
(202) 273-5994, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1d777c6433757c716d786f735d756c33707879336b7c337a726b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4228233b6c2a232e3227302c022a336c2f27266c34236c252d34">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: August 11, 2006.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 06-7075 Filed 8-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 54.302 Monthly per-line limit on universal service support. ( a ) Beginning July 1, 2012 and until June 30, 2013, each study area's universal service monthly support (not including Connect America Fund support provided pursuant to § 54.304) on a per-line basis shall not exceed $250 per-line plus two-thirds of the difference between its uncapped per-line monthly support and $250. Beginning July 1, 2013 and until June 30, 2014, each study area's universal service monthly support on a per-line basis shall not exceed $250 per-line plus one third of the difference between its uncapped per-line monthly support and $250. Beginning July 1, 2014, each study area's universal service monthly per-line support shall not exceed $250. Beginning July 1, 2019, until June 30, 2021, each study area's universal service monthly per-line support shall not exceed $225. Beginning July 1, 2021, each study area's universal service monthly per-line support shall not exceed $200.
( b ) For purposes of this section, universal service support is defined as the sum of the amounts calculated pursuant to §§ 54.1304, 54.1310, 54.305, and 54.901 through 54.904. Line counts for purposes of this section shall be as of the most recent line counts reported pursuant to § 54.903(a)(1).
( c ) The Administrator, in order to limit support for carriers pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, shall reduce safety net additive support, high-cost loop support, safety valve support, and Connect America Fund Broadband Loop Support in proportion to the relative amounts of each support the study area would receive absent such limitation.
[76 FR 73870, Nov. 29, 2011, as amended at 79 FR 39188, July 9, 2014; 82 FR 14339, Mar. 20, 2017; 84 FR 4730, Feb. 19, 2019]
[Civ. No. 7379.

Third Dist.

May 7, 1947.]

#### Guardianship of ALICE M. MEYER, an Incompetent Person.

Sullivan, Roche, Johnson & Farraher for Appellant.

Lounibos *&*Lounibos for Respondent.

*519THE COURT.

This is a motion by counsel for appellant to dismiss, without prejudice, the appeal filed by Alice M. Meyer, the above-named alleged incompetent person, from the order appointing a guardian of her estate. The affidavit filed in support of the motion shows that appellant died on February 17, 1947, and that, therefore, the issue as to appellant’s competency has become moot.

The motion to dismiss the appeal without prejudice is granted.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 160 (Friday, August 18, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 47782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7006]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Department of Defense (DoD) Task Force on Mental Health; Meeting

AGENCY: Department of the Army; DoD.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of Public Law 92-463, The 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, announcement is made of the following 
meeting:

    Name of Committee: DoD Task Force on Mental Health, a 
Subcommittee of the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board.
    Dates: September 20, 2006 (Open Session), September 21, 2006 
(Open Session).
    Times: 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. (September 20, 2006); 8:30 a.m.-11 a.m. 
(September 21, 2006).
    Location: Howze Auditorium, Bldg. 33009, 7500 761st Tank 
Battalion Ave., Fort Hood, TX 76544-5008.
    Agenda: The purpose of the meeting is to obtain, review, and 
evaluate information related to the Mental Health Task Force's 
congressionally-directed task of assessing the efficacy of mental 
health services provided to members of the Armed Forces by the 
Department of Defense. The Task Force members will receive briefings 
on topics related to mental health concerns among military service 
members and mental health care delivery. The Task Force will hold a 
``Town Hall Meeting'' session to hear concerns from the Fort Hood 
community and conduct an executive working session.
    For Further Information Contact: Colonel Roger Gibson, Executive 
Secretary, Armed Forces Epidemiological Board, Skyline Six, 5109 
Leesburg Pike, Room 682, Falls Church, VA 22041-3258, (703) 681-
8012/3.
    Supplementary Information: Sessions on September 20, 2006 and 
September 21, 2006 will be open to the public in accordance with 
Section 552b(b) of Title 5, U.S.C., specifically subparagraph (1) 
thereof and Title 5, U.S.C., appendix 1, subsection 10(d). Open 
sessions of the meeting will be limited by space accommodations. Any 
interested person may attend, appear before or file statements with 
the Board at the time and in the manner permitted by the Board.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 06-7006 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
§ 80.1129 Locating and homing signals. ( a ) Locating signals are radio transmissions intended to facilitate the finding of a mobile unit in distress or the location of survivors. These signals include those transmitted by searching units and those transmitted by the mobile unit in distress, by survival craft, by float-free EPIRBS, by satellite EPRIBs, and by search and rescue radar transponders to assist the searching units.
( b ) Homing signals are those locating signals which are transmitted by mobile units in distress, or by survival craft, for the purpose of providing searching units with a signal that can be used to determine the bearing to the transmitting stations.
( c ) Locating signals may be transmitted in the following frequency bands: 117.975-136 MHz, 121.5 MHz, 156-174 MHz, 406-406.1 MHz, and 9200-9500 MHz.
( d ) The 9 GHz locating signals must be in accordance with ITU-R M.628-4 (incorporated by reference, *see* § 80.7), as specified in § 80.1101.
[57 FR 9065, Mar. 16, 1992, as amended at 68 FR 46981, Aug. 7, 2003; 76 FR 67618, Nov. 2, 2011; 78 FR 23158, Apr. 18, 2013]