alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ferguson v. Morris, appellant.

*Mortgage—consideration of.*

M., B. and F. had dealings, and F. owed B. $8,400. F. offered to give B. a mortgage on land for that amount if M., at the same time, would give F. a mortgage on land" for the same amount. This was accordingly done. *Held,*that the mortgage from M. to F. was void for want of consideration, unless it appeared that the debt due B. was one which M. was hound to pay as between F. and M.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. The action was brought by Betsey A. Ferguson and another, • administratrices of the estate of Harriet Ferguson, deceased, against Mary Morris and another, to foreclose a mortgage.

*Risley & Stoddard,*for appellants.

*Richardson & Adams,*for respondents.

Mullin, P. J.

The opinion is devoted to a consideration of the facts. The headnote states all the points of any moment passed upon.

*Judgment reversed and new trial granted.*
SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)


                       PROVIDENT FUNDING ASSOCIATES, L.P.


RE: THE ISSUING ENTITIES LISTED ON EXHIBIT A HERETO (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")


The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Provident Funding Associates,  LP
as servicer (the  "Servicer")  pursuant to the applicable  servicing  agreement,
does hereby  certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the period  covered by each
     relevant  Issuing  Entity's  report  on  Form  10-K  and of the  Servicer's
     performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects  throughout such period.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the
     undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 15th day of March 2007.
     PROVIDENT FUNDING ASSOCIATES, LP

By:      /s/Michelle C. Blake
         Name: Michelle C. Blake
         Title: Chief Financial Officer



<PAGE>


EXHIBIT A

RALI SERIES 2006-QA4 TRUST
RFMSI SERIES 2006-S2 TRUST
RFMSI SERIES 2006-SA3 TRUST
RFMSI SERIES 2006-SA4 TRUST
Strafford,

No. 5652.

#### State *v.*John W. Wickey.

Argued October 3, 1967.

Decided November 30, 1967.

*337*George S. Pappagianis,*Attorney General and *Henry F. Spaloss,*Assistant Attorney General *(Mr. Spaloss*orally), for the State.

*Cooper, Hall & Walker {Mr. Fred W. Hall, Jr.*orally), for the defendant.

Per curiam.

RSA 579:9 proscribes “any unnatural and lascivious act with another person.” The defendant’s primary contention is that this felony is distinct from “gross lewdness or lascivious behavior” a misdemeanor (see RSA 579:3; *State*v. *Smith,*98 N. H. 149, 150); and that the offense with which he is charged is not sodomy or a “crime against nature” in violation of RSA 579:9, *supra.*In essence he argues that the offense charged does not involve “sexual relations ... in an *unnatural*manner” as required by section 9.

A similar contention was made, although with respect to different facts, in *State*v. *Vredenburg,*91 N. H. 372. It was there pointed out that the statute (then P. L., *c.*386, *s.*9) is “construed to be more comprehensive than the common law in the scope of the conduct prohibited.” See also, *State*v. *Desilets,*96 N. H. 245.

In the cases last cited, the perverted sex conduct complained of was deemed to be within the purview of the statute. The conduct with which this defendant is charged, was doubtless a misdemeanor under the statute prohibiting gross lewdness or lascivious behavior, RSA 579:3 *(State*v. *Lizotte,*101 N. H. 494) and “in deviation of accepted customs and manners.” *Jacquith*v. *Commonwealth,*331 Mass. 439, 442. However it does not fall within the class of offenses charged in *Vredenburg*and *Desilets, supra (*see Briefs & Cases, Nos. 3237 and 3915), and was not within the statutory term of an “unnatural . . . act,” or the common-law definition of the crime against nature. See *3382 Wharton’s, Criminal Law and Procedure (12th ed.), *ss. 751, 752;*3 Burdick, Law of Crime, *ss.*876-878.

It follows that the motion to quash should be granted.

*Remanded.*

Grimes, J., did not sit.
# CE2009184EN.01012402.xml

| 6.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 184/124 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 184/124

---

Thursday 21 February 2008Application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State ***I

P6_TA(2008)0063

P6_TA(2008)0063

European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 February 2008 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State and repealing Decision No 3052/95/EC (COM(2007)0036 — C6-0065/2007 — 2007/0028(COD))

2009/C 184 E/37

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0036),

having regard to Article 251(2) and Articles 37 and 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0065/2007),

having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinions of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0489/2007),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal as amended; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

| 2. | Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

| 3. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

---

Thursday 21 February 2008P6_TC1- COD(2007)0028

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 21 February 2008 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No .../2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State and repealing Decision No 3052/ 95/ EC

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position at first reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EC) No .../2008.)

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 51 (Friday, March 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1274]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; Final 
Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the 
Special Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives notice 
concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of 
employees at the Allied Chemical Corporation Plant in Metropolis, 
Illinois, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the 
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. 
On February 1, 2007, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the 
Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an 
addition to the SEC:

    Atomic Weapons employees who were monitored or should have been 
monitored for exposure to ionizing radiation while working at Allied 
Chemical Corporation Plant in Metropolis, Illinois, from January 1, 
1959 through December 31, 1976, and who were employed for a number 
of work days aggregating at least 250 work days or in combination 
with work days within the parameters established for one or more 
other classes of employees in the Special Exposure Cohort.

    This designation became effective on March 3, 2007, as provided for 
under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on March 3, 2007, 
members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, 
became members of the Special Exposure Cohort.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of 
Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, 
OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). 
Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#440b070517040700076a030b12"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="723d313321323136315c353d24">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: March 12, 2007.
John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 07-1274 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 95.703 Definitions.

As used in this subpart:

*Acquisition cost* of an item of purchased equipment means the net invoice price of the equipment, including the cost of modifications, attachments, accessories, or auxiliary apparatus necessary to make the equipment usable for the purpose for which it was acquired. Other charges such as the cost of installation, transportation, taxes, duty or protective intransit insurance shall be included in or excluded from the unit acquisition cost in accordance with the regular accounting practices of the organization purchasing the equipment. If the item is acquired by trading in another item and paying an additional amount, *acquisition cost* means the amount received for trade-in plus the additional outlay.

*Equipment* means an article of tangible personal property that has a useful life of more than two years and an acquisition cost of $500 or more. Any recipient may use its own definition of equipment, if its definition would at least include all items of equipment as defined here.

*Public Assistance Programs* means programs authorized by titles I, IV-A, IV-B, IV-C, IV-D, IV-E, X, XIV, XVI (AABD), XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act, and programs authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act as amended by the Refugee Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-212).

*State* means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam.

*State Agency* means the State agency administering a public assistance program(s). This term includes local government public assistance agencies which administer public assistance programs under a State supervised system and the State agencies which supervise the local agencies.

[47 FR 41576, Sept. 21, 1982, as amended at 65 FR 33633, May 24, 2000]
### RECEIVED 

# oPPT CaIC 1012 DEC 18 !IMiI I : 19 December 17, 2012 Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460-0001 ATTN : 40 CFR 799.5089; Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112 LANXESS Corporation Study Submission for CAS# 98-09-9 Dear DCOOfficer : 

# 40130000018 Enclosed is the second of several tests LANXESS Corporation will be submitting in compliance with the test rule for CAS# 98-09-9 (benzenesulfonyl chloride)
. Study Name: Benzenesulfonyl chloride: Chromosome Aberration Test in Human Lymphoctyes In Vitro
. (Project # 41201582) We have enclosed one hard copy version of the study and the robust summary and have included one CD containing an electronic version of both the study and the robust summary. Should you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely,

Deborah A

. Vercek Senior Regulatory Affairs Specialist Deborah Vercek Regulatory Affairs 111 Park West Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15272-1112 Phone 412-809-3709 Fax: 412-809-1056 Deborah .Vercek@lanxess.com www .US .I-ANXESS .com

IIIIII IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII



## CONTAINS NOCBI 

# LANXESS Energizing Chemistry
###### Editorial Note on Part 99

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 99 appear at 63 FR 39998, July 24, 1998.

#### § 99.13 Place.

The hearing shall be held in the city in which the regional office of the Department responsible for oversight of the Lead Agency is located or in such other place as the Assistant Secretary determines, considering both the circumstances of the case and the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives.
§ 800.114 Compliance with applicable State law. ( a ) *Compliance with State law.* An MSP issuer must, with respect to each of its MSP options, generally comply with State law pursuant to section 1334(b)(2) of the Affordable Care Act. However, the MSP options and MSP issuers are not subject to State laws that: ( 1 ) Are inconsistent with section 1334 of the Affordable Care Act or this part;
( 2 ) Prevent the application of a requirement of part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act; or
( 3 ) Prevent the application of a requirement of title I of the Affordable Care Act.
( b ) *Determination of inconsistency.* After consultation with the State and HHS, OPM reserves the right to determine, in its judgment, as effectuated through an MSP Program contract, these regulations, or OPM guidance, whether the standards set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are satisfied with respect to particular State laws.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q OF GOLDLEAF FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2006**

The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the undersigned’s best knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for Goldleaf Financial Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”):

|   | (a)    | fully   complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities   Exchange Act of 1934; and                                          |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                    |
|   | (b)    | the   information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material   respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. |

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

          This Certification is executed as of November 13, 2006. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|   | /s/ G. Lynn   Boggs       |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   |                           |
|   | G. Lynn   Boggs           |
|   | Chief   Executive Officer |
Swanson, Brian {OST) 

!=':~~:. 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Dear Brian, 

mike < mwsawdey@brainerd.net> 

Wednesday, August 15, 2012 1:50 PM 

Swanson, Brian (OST) 

'mike' 

Air Service for Brainerd, MN Regional Airport 

I am writing to strongly urge you to consider awarding the bid for service at the Brainerd, MN Regional Airport to Sky 

West Airlines. I am currently a Diamond Frequent Flyer with Delta 

Airlines. I along with many residents in the Brainerd Minnesota area rely on consistent, reliable air service to conduct our 

business, I, along with my wife, made the decision to move to this 

area because of the terrific quality of life. Part of that quality of life relies on air service that can handle the numbers of 

flyers, meet the schedules and accommodate the oversized luggage that 

accompanies a tourist based economy. We have military duffels, (Camp Ripley 30 miles lo the south), golf clubs, hockey 

duffels, (Minnesota Hockey Schools year around), and large travel 

luggage. The other two airlines being mentioned do not have the equipment that can be serviced by the jet bridge at the 

Regional Airport, nor do they have equipment that can handle the amount 

of checked luggage in and out of the airport. Additionally, Sky West is the only carrier being considered that already is 

set up to code share with Delta Airlines. This point is very important to the 

over 40 Diamond, and dozens of other frequent flyers, that fly in and out of Brainerd, Minnesota. 

The only carrier that makes sense is Sky West. 

Thank You for your consideration. 

Michael Sawdey 

13207 Knollwood Drive 

Baxter, MN 56425 

1-218-828-6399 

mwsawdey@ brainerd.net 

1
# Senate Floor Activity - Thursday, June 12, 2014

**

----

## The Journal

## Certain Procedures Dispensed With

## Transaction of Morning Business

## Legislative Business (Thursday, June 12)

H.R. 4660

S.Res. 473

S.Res. 474

S.Res. 475

S.Res. 476

## Executive Business (Thursday, June 12)

PN1111

 188

PN1244

PN1342

 191

PN1344

 189

PN1347

PN1348

PN1350

 190

PN1364

PN1400

PN1453

PN1458

## Adjournment

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure 

### Floor Activity Summaries 

View previous floor activity files.Stream live Senate floor proceedings while a meeting is in progress.View past floor proceedings on CSPAN

### Additional Information 

Use this site's search or visit the Senate Index to find pages by topic.

To learn about the history of the Senate visit the About the Senate section of Senate.gov.

### Contact Your Senators 

Follow this guide on how to contact your senators by phone, postal mail, or on the web.
§ 60.10 Concurrent State and Federal nominations. ( a ) State Historic Preservation Officers and Federal Preservation Officers are encouraged to cooperate in locating, inventorying, evaluating, and nominating all properties possessing historical, architectural, archeological, or cultural value. Federal agencies may nominate properties where a portion of the property is not under Federal ownership or control.
( b ) When a portion of the area included in a Federal nomination is not located on land under the ownership or control of the Federal agency, but is an integral part of the cultural resource, the completed nomination form shall be sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer for notification to property owners, to give owners of private property an opportunity to concur in or object to the nomination, to solicit written comments and for submission to the State Review Board pursuant to the procedures in § 60.6.
( c ) If the State Historic Preservation Officer and the State Review Board agree that the nomination meets the National Register criteria for evaluation, the nomination is signed by the State Historic Preservation Officer and returned to the Federal agency initiating the nomination. If the State Historic Preservation Officer and the State Review Board disagree, the nomination shall be returned to the Federal agency with the opinions of the State Historic Preservation Officer and the State Review Board concerning the adequacy of the nomination and whether or not the property meets the criteria for evaluation. The opinion of the State Review Board may be the minutes of the State Review Board meeting. The State Historic Preservation Officer's signed opinion and comments shall confirm to the Federal agency that the State nomination procedures have been fulfilled including notification requirements. Any comments received by the State shall be included with the letter as shall any notarized statements objecting to the listing of private property.
( d ) If the owner of any privately owned property, (or a majority of the owners of such properties within a district or single property with multiple owners) objects to such inclusion by notarized statement(s) the Federal Historic Preservation Officer shall submit the nomination to the Keeper for review and a determination of eligibility. Comments, opinions, and notarized statements of objection shall be submitted with the nomination.
( e ) The State Historic Preservation Officer shall notify the non-Federal owners when a concurrent nomination is listed or determined eligible for the National Register as required in § 60.6.
#### § 670.7 Food exception.

Paragraph (e) of § 670.4 shall not apply to the introduction of animals and plants into Antarctica for use as food as long as animals and plants used for this purpose are kept under carefully controlled conditions. This exception shall not apply to living species of animals. Unconsumed poultry or its parts shall be removed from Antarctica unless incinerated, autoclaved or otherwise sterilized.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 A1 96 0 . CHARLENE M. GREEN v . ROBERT S. BARRON.

Th i s cas e b eg an as a d is p o s s es s o ry p ro ceed i n g i n m ag is t rat e co urt

. Fo l l o wi n g

an ad v ers e ru l i n g , Ch arl en e M

. Green ap p eal ed t o t h e s t at e co u rt

, wh i ch en t ered a wri t

o f p os s es s i o n i n fav o r o f Ro b ert S. Barro n

. Green t h en ap p eal ed d i rect l y t o th i s Co u rt

. Becau s e t h e o rd er at is s u e d i s p o s es o f a d e n o v o ap p eal fro m a m ag is t rat e co u rt

d eci s i o n , Green was req u i red t o fo l l o w t h e d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal p ro ced u res t o o b t ai n

rev i ew b efo re t h i s Co u rt

. See OCGA § 5-6 -3 5 (a ) ( 1 1 ) ; S t r a ch an v. Mer i t o r Mt g.

Co r p

. Ea s t

, 2 16 Ga. Ap p

. 8 2 (4 5 3 SE2 d 1 19 ) (1 9 9 5 ). Her fai l u re to d o s o d ep ri v es u s

o f ju ri s d ict i o n o v er t hi s ap p eal , wh i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 07/22/2015 July 22, 2015