alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dougherty, Appellant, *v.*Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company.

*Interest—Verdict—Remittitur.*

When a verdict is rendered in favor of plaintiff, and several years afterwards plaintiff files a remittitur of all above a sum stated, and judgment is entered thereon, interest will run on the amount of the judgment from the date of its entry, and not upon such amount from the date of the verdict.

Argued Dec. 2, 1914.

Appeal, No. 135, Oct. T., 1914,

by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1907, No. 2,747, discharging rule for judgment and interest in case of Delia Dougherty v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company.

Before Rice, P. J., Orlady, Head, Kephart and Trexler, JJ.

Affirmed.

Rule for judgment and interest.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

*Error assigned*was order discharging rule for judgment and interest.

*Henry J. Scott,*for appellant, cited: Irwin v. Hazleton, 37 Pa. 465; West Rep. Mining Co. v. Jones, 108 Pa. 55.

*Chester N. Farr, Jr.,*for appellee.

December 20, 1914:

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

On November 15, 1910, the plaintiff recovered a verdict in the sum of $1,765. After argument, on a mo*575tion and reasons for a new trial, the court on December 6, 1910, made the following order: "Upon filing by plaintiff of remittitur for all over $900, the motion is overruled, otherwise the motion is granted.” The record remained in this situation until February 14, 1914, when the following entry was made: "The plaintiff by her counsel remits all in excess of $900,” paid the jury fee, and entered judgment for that amount. The defendant tendered to the plaintiff on March 2, 1914, $900 and costs, which was refused by the plaintiff, who claimed interest on the sum of $900 from November 15, 1910, to the date of the tender. This rule for judgment and interest was discharged by the court below.

In this country, interest is looked upon as an incident of the money to be paid with the. principal when the latter has been withheld after it became the duty of the debtor to pay it. It seems to have been long understood that where it is the duty of the debtor to pay the sum he owes, and the creditor demands a greater sum, the debtor can only relieve himself from liability by tendering payment of the debt. A bona fide dispute as to the amount of indebtedness is no bar to the accruing of interest. If a tender of payment falls short of the sum found due at the time of the tender, interest runs on the whole: Irwin v. Hazleton, 37 Pa. 465; West. Reb. Mining Co. v. Jones, 108 Pa. 55.

When the plaintiff in this case filed her remittitur for "all in excess of $900,” she released everything, whether in the nature of principal or interest thereon, and by her own carefully chosen words fixed the amount of the judgment she elected to accept, on the date of February 14, 1914. On this sum interest began, not on a verdict, the amount of which was in suspense, but on the judgment which represented- her liquidation of that verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.
# PAC Table 3b

&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000This table was generated on 8/25/20.
CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Exhibit 31.1

                            CERTIFICATIONS

I, William J. Bosso, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Knight Energy
Corp. (the "Registrant");

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 consolidated financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the consolidated 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 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)) for the Registrant
and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the
case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the Registrant's independent registered public accounting
firm and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

August 13, 2007

/s/ William J. Bosso
--------------------------------
William J. Bosso
Principal Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 12, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 74573]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9626]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Cancellation of Preparation of Environmental Impact Statement for 
Ontario International Airport, Ontario, San Bernardino County, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of preparation of Environmental Impact 
Statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces that it 
has decided to discontinue preparation of an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) for master plan improvements to Ontario International 
Airport, Ontario, California. The FAA's decision to discontinue 
preparation of the EIS is based upon the decision by Los Angeles World 
Airports, the owner of the airport, to discontinue pursuit of the 
master plan for Ontario International Airport at this time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victor Globa, Environmental Protection 
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Los Angeles Airports 
District Office, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, California 90009-2007, 
Telephone: (310) 725-3637.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 9, 2004, the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) issued a Notice of intent to prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement for future development at Ontario 
International Airport, Ontario, California in the Federal Register (69 
FR 32394-32396). The need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) was based on the procedures described in FAA Order 1050.1E, 
Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. The need to prepare a 
federal EIS was primarily based on Los Angeles World Airports Draft 
Master Plan for Ontario that included the proposed relocation and 
increased separation of the runways, new taxiway, additional terminals, 
aircraft gates, and expansion and/or relocation of parking lots, access 
roads, ground transportation center, airport maintenance area, 
administrative facility and aircraft rescue and firefighting facility. 
Los Angeles World Airports, as the owner and operator of Ontario 
international Airport has notified the FAA of their decision to 
discontinue pursuit of the draft master plan at this time. If and when 
Los Angeles World Airports decides to resume preparation of a Master 
Plan, the FAA will evaluate the proposed improvements to ensure 
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 
amended.

    Issued in Hawthorne, California on December 1, 2006.
Mark A. McClardy,
Manager, Airports Division, Western-Pacific Region, AWP-600.
[FR Doc. 06-9626 Filed 12-11-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

 September 27, 2007 

 ERRATA

Appeal No. 2006-5060 

Avtel Services Inc. v. United States

Order Dated: August 21, 2007. Precedential 

In the dissenting opinion of Judge Newman, the following change is made: 

At page 2, line 9, replace "principle" with -- principal --.
Date of 

report 

1970 

Ma1 15 

~ruutr nf tqt luttrb itutrs 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

F S { Convened January 3, 1969 

IRST ESSION Adjourned December 23, 1969 

S S {Convened January 19, 1970 

ECOND ESSION 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Prepared under the direction of FRANCIS R. VALEO, Secretary of the Senate 

By GERALD A HACKETT, Executive Clerk 

Monday, May 18, 1970 

NOMINATION 

Calendar Message Name of nommee Office Predecessor 

No No 

CALIFORNIA DEBRIS 

COMMISSION 

65 15 Brrg Gen Frank A A member of the Cahfor- Bng Gen Wrlham M. 

Carom, C01p::. of :Cngr- ma Debrb Comrm~~IOn, Glaogow, Jr, who 

I neer~, U S Ar Ill\ I under the provNons of retrred m December 

sec 1 of the act of Fl69 

Congre,~ approved Mar 

I 1, 1893 (27 Stat 507, 33 usc 661) 

37-022-7Q-No 173 

J S GOJtRtlM£ttr PRJ NT NG OFFICE 1970
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Primus Knowledge Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael A. Brochu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that: 

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements 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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

 

/s/  Michael A. Brochu 

 

Michael A. Brochu 

Chief Executive Officer 

August 14, 2003
#### Amelia E. Davis, Admrx. *v.*John O. Carpenter.

May Term, 1900.

Present: Tapt, C. J., Rowell, Tyler, Munson, Thompson and Watson, JJ.

Opinion filed May 23, 1900.

*Survival of actions*— Action *for seduction*— An action brought by a father- for the seduction of his minor daughter does not survive at common law nor by statute.

*Definition*— “Personal *estate” as used m V. S. 2446*— The right of a father to the services of his daughter is not personal estate within the meaning of V. S. 2446. The phrase “personal estate ” as used in that section has reference to specific personal property.

Action on the case brought by Richard I. Davis for the alleged seduction of his minor daughter. Bennington County. At the June Term, 1899, the death of the plaintiff was suggested,' and subsequently the administratrix of his estate entered to prosecute. At the December Term, 1899, a hearing was had on a *260motion to dismiss, *Start,*J., presiding. The motion was sustained and the action dismissed. The plaintiff excepted.

*Charles S. Chase*for the plaintiff.

*O. E. Butterfield*for the defendant.

Taft, C. J.

This suit was brought by Richard Davis for the alleged seduction of his minor daughter. After entry in court, the death of the plaintiff was suggested, the administratrix of his estate entered to prosecute and the cause was heard on the defendant’s motion to dismiss, for that the cause of action does not survive. The action does not survive at common law, nor by our statute unless it is within that clause of sec. 2446, Y. S., which provides that *“*actions of * * * trespass on the case for damages done to * * * personal estate shall survive.” Although a father is entitled to the services of his minor daughter it cannot be said his right thereto is what is meant by the term personal estate, as used in the section of the statute referred to. The term has reference to specific personal property. The court below dismissed the action and its

*Judgment is affirmed.*
#### § 254.31 Definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart,

An *applicant* is a person who occupies or has improvements on National Forest System land under claim of title or color of title, or who owns land abutting or underlying a road right-of-way, or who owns land interspersed with or adjacent to mineral survey fractions.

*Approximately equal value* is a comparative estimate of value of lands involved in an interchange where elements of value, such as physical characteristics and other amenities, are readily apparent and substantially similar.

*Claim of title* is a claim of land as a person's own, based on any reasonable evidence which establishes the person's actual use of the land as though the person had full title thereto from the time the person obtained ownership of abutting land.

*Color of title* arises from an instrument purporting to convey title to a tract of land.

*Encroachments* are improvements occupied or used on National Forest System land under claim of title or color of title.

*Exchange* is a discretionary, voluntary transaction involving mutual transfers of land or interests in land between the Secretary of Agriculture acting by and through the Forest Service and a nonfederal entity.

*Good faith* is honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put a prudent person upon inquiry.

*Improvements* mean an addition to property costing labor or capital which affects its value. The term generally includes fixtures, structures and attendant facilities, or buildings.

*Interchange* is a land transfer in which the Secretary and another person exchange lands or interests in lands of approximately equal value without a formal appraisal.

*Mineral survey fractions* are small parcels of National Forest System lands interspersed with or adjacent to lands transferred out of Federal ownership under the mining laws.

*Permanent Habitable Improvement* means a dwelling, improvement, house, or other structure presently being used as a residence or domicile for a lasting or indefinite period of time.

*Person* includes any nonfederal entity such as a State or any political subdivision as well as any individual or business entity.

*Secretary* refers to the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture.

[49 FR 1185, Jan. 10, 1984, as amended at 85 FR 60916, Sept. 29, 2020]
§ 162.1801 Coordination of benefits transaction. The coordination of benefits transaction is the transmission from any entity to a health plan for the purpose of determining the relative payment responsibilities of the health plan, of either of the following for health care: ( a ) Claims.
( b ) Payment information.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on November 3, 2006, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) has filed written notification simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, 19 new standards have been initiated and 7 existing standards are being revised. More detail regarding these changes can be found at                     *http://standards.ieee.org/​standardswire/​sba/​09-15-06.html*.                

                    On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 4, 2006. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on September 8, 2006 (71 FR 53133).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 06-9445 Filed 11-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
§ 1356.86 Penalties for noncompliance. ( a ) *Definition of Federal funds subject to a penalty.* The funds that are subject to a penalty are the CFCIP funds allocated or reallocated to the State agency under section 477(c)(1) of the Act for the Federal fiscal year that corresponds with the reporting period for which the State agency was required originally to submit data according to section 1356.83(a) of this part.
( b ) *Assessed penalty amounts.* ACF will assess penalties in the following amounts, depending on the area of noncompliance: ( 1 ) *Penalty for not meeting file submission standards.* ACF will assess a penalty in an amount equivalent to two and one half percent (2.5%) of the funds subject to a penalty for each reporting period in which ACF makes a final determination that the State agency's data file does not comply with the file submission standards defined in section 1356.85(a) of this part.
( 2 ) *Penalty for not meeting certain data standards.* ACF will assess a penalty in an amount equivalent to: ( i ) One and one quarter percent (1.25%) of the funds subject to a penalty for each reporting period in which ACF makes a final determination that the State agency's data file does not comply with the data standard for error-free data as defined in section 1356.85(b)(1) of this part.
( ii ) One and one quarter percent (1.25%) of the funds subject to a penalty for each reporting period in which ACF makes a final determination that the State agency's data file does not comply with the outcome universe standard defined in section 1356.85(b)(2) of this part.
( iii ) One half of one percent (0.5%) of the funds subject to a penalty for each reporting period in which ACF makes a final determination that the State agency's data file does not comply with the participation rate for youth in foster care standard defined in section 1356.85(b)(3)(i) of this part.
( iv ) One half of one percent (0.5%) of the funds subject to a penalty for each reporting period in which ACF makes a final determination that the State agency's data file does not comply with the participation rate for discharged youth standard defined in section 1356.85(b)(3)(ii) of this part.
( c ) *Calculation of the penalty amount.* ACF will add together any assessed penalty amounts described in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section to determine the total calculated penalty result. If the total calculated penalty result is less than one percent of the funds subject to a penalty, the State agency will be penalized in the amount of one percent.
( d ) *Notification of penalty amount.* ACF will advise the State agency in writing of a final determination of noncompliance and the amount of the total calculated penalty as determined in paragraph (c) of this section.
( e ) *Interest.* The State agency will be liable for interest on the amount of funds penalized by the Department, in accordance with the provisions of 45 CFR 30.18.
( f ) *Appeals.* The State agency may appeal, pursuant to 45 CFR part 16, ACF's final determination to the HHS Departmental Appeals Board.
[73 FR 10365, Feb. 26, 2008, as amended at 77 FR 952, Jan. 6, 2012]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6174
In Re: DAVID WILBERT SHANTON, SR., Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-81-3, CR-89-250) Submitted: February 5, 2002 Decided: February 13, 2002 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Wilbert Shanton, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: David Wilbert Shanton, Sr., has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court to compel the district court to expedite its consideration of his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001), and to find that the court’s referral of the§ 2254 petition to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation was error. The granting of a writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used in extraordinary circumstances. In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir. 1987). A petitioner must show that he has a clear right to the relief sought, that the respondent has a clear duty to perform the act requested by petitioner, and that there is no other adequate remedy available. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Shanton has failed to make the requisite showing for such extraordinary relief. Our review of the district court docket sheet discloses that there has been no undue delay in considering Shanton’s § 2254 petition by the district court and magistrate judge. Although we grant Shanton’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED