alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HENRY A. STUDWELL and others, Appellants, *v.*THE CHARTER OAK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

*Action on a policy of*insurance— *answer setting up a false statement in the application therefor —particularity required in.*

Appeal from an order denying an application to make the answer more definite and certain.

This action -was upon a policy of life insurance. The answer set up various violations of the conditions contained in the policy, and by the second defence alleged that the agreement was not correctly set forth, and asked that the policy might be reformed so as to give effect to the intention of both parties, as expressed in the said second answer.

The answer contained among others the following averments:

That the application referred to in said policy was the application of Lucretia A. Studwell, and was filed in the office of the defendant. That the following questions were contained in said application:

“ 10. Have her parents, uncles or aunts (noting whether paternal or maternal), brothers or sisters boon afflicted with consumption, scrofula, rheumatism, gout, insanity, or any hereditary disease ? ” *603To which questions the said Lucretia A. Studweli answered “ no which answer defendant alleges it is informed and believes was false and made with the fraudulent intention of deceiving the defendant, and of obtaining the policy from it by fraud.

The court at General Term said: “It will be seen that the answer gives no information to the plaintiffs of the particular violation complained of and leaves it all in doubt and uncertainty.

“We see no reason why the answer should not be as particular, in respect of such violation,-as the complaint should be if similar violations were complained of in that form.

“We think it is the duty of the pleader, in presenting such an answer, to state particularly the violation which is set up as a defence. For example, whether the parent was afflicted with consumption or scrofula, rheumatism, gout or insanity, or some hereditary disease, and not to class these all together, and therefore put the plaintiff to the necessity of preparing to show, by evidence, that no one of these numerous diseases existed in the family. Without any more detailed statement of our views upon this subject, it is necessary only to say, that we think that the motion should have been grauted, except as to the second defence, which should be permitted to stand.”

*W. C.*Beecher, for the appellants. *Charles B.*Alexander, for the respondent.

Opinion

*Per Curiam.*

Present — Brady, P. J., INGálls and DANIELS, JJ.

Order reversed as to all the answers except the second, and as to the second, affirmed without costs to either party.
Skip NavigationEn Español

You are here:                Home » Disorders A - Z » Rett Syndrome »             

Skip secondary menu

Home

Disorders A - Z

Information Page

Publications

Organizations

News

Research literature

Other related groupsOrganizationsProfessional SocietiesGovernment Resources

NINDS Clinical Trials

En EspañolOrder Brochures

News From NINDS

Recovery Act

Funding Information

Training & Career Awards

Diversity Programs

Research Programs

Find People

About NINDS

 

Email this pagePrint-friendly versionContact NINDS

----

Adobe ReaderMicrosoft Word Viewer

# Rett Syndrome Fact Sheet

See a list of all NINDS Disorders

Get Web page suited for printing                              			Email this to a friend or colleague                              			                              			Request free mailed brochure                              		Síndrome de Rett

## Table of Contents (click to jump to sections)
September 2 0 , 2016

Exemption No. 16296 A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 7368

Mr. Kyle Falwell

Management Member

Bon Air Drone, LLC

4132 Richmond Highway

Lynchburg, VA 24501

Dear Mr. Falwell :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions

and limitations.

By letter dated May 18, 2016 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of Bon Air Drone, LLC (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an amendment to your

current exemption . That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and ( c ), 61.101(e)(4 ) and (5), 61.113(a),

61.315(a) , 91.7 (a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and

(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the

petitioner to conduct UAS operations

. You requested an amendment to change the company

name from Bon Air Brokerage, LLC to Bon Air Drone, LLC

.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exem ption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a

precedent, and any delay in acting on this pe tition would be detrime ntal to the petitioner

.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 16296

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained2

in 49 U.S.C

. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is

granted an amendment to change the operator name

.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of amendment, Bon Air Drone, LLC is hereafter referred to as the operator. All

conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 16296 remain in effect

.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

T his exemption terminates on April 30, 2018 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/ s/

John S. Duncan

Di rector, Flight Standards Service
§ 80.415 Publications. ( a ) The following publications listed in the table contained in § 80.401 are published by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU): ( 1 ) Manual for Use of the Maritime Mobile and Maritime Mobile-Satellite Services.
( 2 ) List IV—List of Coast Stations.
( 3 ) List V—List of Ship Stations.
( 4 ) List VI—List of Radiodetermination and Special Services Stations.
( 5 ) List VII A—Alphabetical List of Call Signs of Stations Used by the Maritime Mobile Service, Ship Station Selective Call Numbers or Signals and Coast Station Identification Numbers or Signals. These publications may be purchased from: International Telecommunication Union, General Secretariat-Sales Section, Place des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland
( b ) The following publications listed in the table contained in § 80.401 are available as follows: ( 1 ) IMO GMDSS Master Plan may be purchased from International Maritime Organization (IMO), Publications, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7 SR, United Kingdom; telephone 011 44 71 735 7611.
( 2 ) U.S. NGA Publication 117 may be purchased from Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954, telephone 202-512-1800.
( 3 ) The Admiralty List of Radio Signals, Volume 5—Global Maritime Distress and Safety System, may be purchased from UK Hydrographic Office, Admiralty Way, Tauton, Somerset TA1 2DN, United Kingdom, telephone + 44 (0)1823 337900 x3333.
[51 FR 31213, Sept. 2, 1986, as amended at 68 FR 46972, Aug. 7, 2003; 78 FR 23157, Apr. 18, 2013]
No. 11-9570.

#### Richard *v.*Steib et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
272P15

#### Susan Vaughan, Grandmother, Caretaker, Custodian v. Currituck DSS, et al.

1. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion for Temporary Stay (COAP14-997)

1. Denied 08/06/2015

2. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

2. Denied

3. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA

3. Denied
Exhibit 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF COTELLIGENT, INC. (THE COMPANY)

AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2003



|                                          |  |                                                            
|----------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|Subsidiary                                |  | State or Other Jurisdiction ofIncorporation of Organization
|bSmart.com to LLC                         |  | Delaware Limited Liability corporation                     
|Cotelligent USA, Inc.                     |  | California corporation                                     
|CZG Mobile Ventures, Inc.                 |  | Delaware corporation                                       
|Jas Concepts, Inc.                        |  | Pennsylvania corporation                                   
|Recency Media, Inc.                       |  | Delaware corporation                                       
|Recency Media USA, Inc.                   |  | Delaware corporation                                       
|R. Reed Business Systems Consulting, Inc. |  | Illinois corporation                                       
|Watchit Media, Inc.                       |  | Delaware corporation                                       
|Watchit Media USA, Inc.                   |  | Delaware corporation
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350


In connection with the Annual Report of ION Geophysical Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2015 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven A. Bate, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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, to my knowledge, that:


|   |                                                                                                                                      
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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: February 12, 2016/s/ Steven A. BateSteven A. BateExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 11-87.

#### Carter *v.*University of Hawaii.

Int. Ct. App. Haw. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 3.2








CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT


TO THE


RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION


OF


ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION





ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (the “ Corporation ”), does hereby certify as follows:





FIRST: The name of the Corporation is ION Geophysical Corporation.





SECOND: SECTION 1 of ARTICLE FOURTH of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:





SECTION 1. Capitalization . The Corporation is authorized to issue four hundred five million (405,000,000) shares of capital stock. Four hundred million (400,000,000) of the authorized shares shall be common stock, one cent ($0.01) par value each (“Common Stock”), and five million (5,000,000) of the authorized shares shall be preferred stock, one cent ($0.01) par value each (“Preferred Stock”).





Each holder of shares of capital stock of the Corporation shall at every meeting of the stockholders be entitled to one vote in person or by proxy for each share of the capital stock of the Corporation held by the stockholder, unless otherwise specifically provided pursuant to this Restated Certificate of Incorporation.





THIRD: This Certificate of Amendment shall become effective upon filing with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.





FOURTH: All other provisions of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation shall remain in full force and effect.





FIFTH: This Certificate of Amendment was duly adopted in accordance with Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, as amended (“DGCL”). The board of directors of the Corporation duly adopted resolutions setting forth and declaring advisable this Certificate of Amendment and directed that the proposed amendment be considered by the stockholders of the Corporation. At a special meeting of the stockholders of the Corporation held on February 1, 2016 and called in accordance with the relevant provisions of the DGCL, the stockholders of the Corporation duly adopted this Certificate of Amendment.





*    *    *    *








1


---







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Amendment to be duly executed in its corporate name by its duly authorized officer as of the 2 nd day of February, 2016.


ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATIONBy:/s/ Jamey SeelyName: Jamey SeelyTitle:   Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary

















2
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 10 U.S.C.  Section  1350 as adopted  pursuant to Section 1350 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  in  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of

Electronic Game Card, Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2005,

as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the

"Report") for Electronic  Game Card,  Inc.,  (the  "Company"),  the  undersigned

hereby certifies that:



(1)      to the  best of my  knowledge,  the  Report  fully  complies  with  the

requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act

of 1934; and



(2)      to the best of my knowledge,  the  information  contained in the Report

fairly presents, in all material respects,  the financial condition and

result of operations of the Company.



February 3, 2006





/S/ LINDEN J. BOYNE

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

LINDEN J. BOYNE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM PUBLIC
SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO AND  SUBSIDIARIES  CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET AS OF
DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE
YEAR ENDED  DECEMBER  31, 1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                             1,000
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                          PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>            4,054,389
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>            215,284
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                 543,674
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>               364,289
<OTHER-ASSETS>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       5,177,636
<COMMON>                                     0
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>            1,302,119
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                    325,213
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>       1,627,332
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  194,000
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                 1,607,604
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                           0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                    0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>         402,795
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>           40,451
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                    0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>             35,526
<LEASES-CURRENT>                         4,030
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>       1,265,898
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>        5,177,636
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>            2,284,086
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                   101,494
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>           1,850,574
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>           1,952,068
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                332,018
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                       6,399
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>         338,417
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>               138,314
<NET-INCOME>                           200,103
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              5,332
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>          194,771
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>               188,845
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>              129,793
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                 421,218
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.000
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.000
        

</TABLE>
#### §§ 90.676-90.677 [Reserved]
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00258-CV

STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellant

v.

FLG OWNER, LLC,

Appellee

From the 77th District Court

Freestone County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV23218

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The State of Texas appealed the trial court’s Order Partially Denying Plaintiff’s 

Application for Temporary Injunction. The State now moves to dismiss the appeal. 

The State’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1. The State is exempt from costs.

 

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice
State v. FLG Owner, LLC Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray, 

Justice Johnson, and 

Justice Smith 

Motion granted; appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed December 14, 2023

[CV06]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"18-1432: IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD. v. VALVE CORPORATION [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"rzc74pkDEX\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/7-15-2019-18-1432-ironburg-inventions-ltd-v-valve-corporation-rule-36-judgment-18-1432-rule_36_judgment-7-15-2019-1\/\">18-1432: IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD. v. VALVE CORPORATION [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/7-15-2019-18-1432-ironburg-inventions-ltd-v-valve-corporation-rule-36-judgment-18-1432-rule_36_judgment-7-15-2019-1\/embed\/#?secret=rzc74pkDEX\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“18-1432: IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD. v. VALVE CORPORATION [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"rzc74pkDEX\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD. v. VALVE CORPORATION [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 18-1432 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### § 87.77 Availability for inspections.

The licensee must make the station and its records available for inspection upon request.
###### Editorial Note on Part 74

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at 64 FR 4055, Jan. 27, 1999.

#### § 74.1290 [Reserved]
No. 11-5944.

#### Diaz *v.*Arnone, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Correction.

App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-5866.

#### Sayre *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Independent Auditors' Consent

 

The Board of DirectorsPFF Bancorp, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (No. 333-20337 and No. 333-65816) on Form S-8 of PFFBancorp, Inc. of our report dated April 17, 2003, with respect to theconsolidated balance sheets of PFF Bancorp, Inc. as of March 31, 2003 and 2002,and the related consolidated statements of earnings, comprehensive earnings,stockholders' equity, and cash flows, for each of the years in the three-yearperiod ended March 31, 2003, which report appears in the March 31, 2003, annualreport on Form 10-K of PFF Bancorp, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Los Angeles, CaliforniaJune 25, 2003
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Andres Lee Schuman Jr.

, * From the 441st District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CR 54799

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 2

- 00 300

- CR * February 29 , 20 2 4

The State of Texas

, * Memorand um Opinion by Trotter , J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.