alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GEORGE W. DRENNAN, PLAINTIFF, v. CLARENCE J. HOUSMAN, DEFENDANT.

Decided January 16, 1929.

Before Gummebe, Chief Justice, and Justices Pabkeb and Katzenbach.

Eor the rule, *Joseph Coult.*

*Contra, John A. Matthews.*

*92Pee Cubiam.

The plaintiff, Drennan, while driving a Eord truck in one of the streets of Long Branch, was injured in a collision with an automobile belonging to the defendant and which was being driven by the latter’s chauffeur. The defendant was riding' in the car at the time of the accident. The present suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation for the injuries received by him, and the trial resulted in a verdict in his favor, the jury awarding him $25,000. The defendant then applied for and obtained the present rule to show cause.

The first ground upon which we are asked to make this rule absolute is that the court erred in charging the following request submitted by the plaintiff, viz., “The defendant, Clarence J. Housman, who it is admitted was riding in the car at the time of the accident, has not been called to testify to the various facts surrounding this accident, and, therefore, you may infer that whatever testimony he may have been able to give would have been unfavorable to him.” In view of the fact that, according to the uncontradicted testimony of the plaintiff given at the trial, the defendant had a conversation with the plaintiff, which took place shortly after the accident, at the hospital where the latter was undergoing treatment, in which he said: “Mr. Drennan, I am very sorry this happened, and, in my opinion, it was our fault” * * * and in view of the further fact that this testimony was corroborated by the plaintiff’s sister, who was present during the conversation, we consider that there was no error in the instruction complained of, which was in effect that the jury might (not must) infer from the failure of the defendant to testify in his own behalf that whatever testimony he would have given if he had taken the stand would have been injurious to his contention that the accident was not the result of the carelessness of his chauffeur.

The only other ground urged for making the rule absolute is that the verdict is clearly excessive. Our consideration of the testimony relating to the character and the extent of the injuries received by the plaintiff leads us to the conclusion that, notwithstanding their seriousness, this contention of the defendant is fully justified.

*93If the plaintiff will consent to reduce the verdict to $15,000, lie may enter judgment for that amount. Otherwise the rule .to show cause will be made absolute.
§ 97.12 Which grants may be consolidated? ( a ) These regulations apply to the consolidation of grants under the programs listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and to any additional program(s) as determined by the Secretary. The list of programs will be periodically updated in the Code of Federal Regulations through publication in the Federal Register.
( b ) Block Grants. ( 1 ) Preventive Health and Health Services, 42 U.S.C. 300w-300w-10.[1]
( 2 ) Alcohol and Drug Abuse and Mental Health Services, 42 U.S.C. 300x-300x-9.[2]
( 3 ) Maternal and Child Health Services, 42 U.S.C. 701-709.[3]
( 4 ) Social Services, 42 U.S.C. 1397-1397f.
( 5 ) Community Services, 42 U.S.C. 9901-9912.
( 6 ) Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 8621-8629.
( 7 ) Community Youth Activity, 42 U.S.C. 11841.[4]
( c ) Other Grants. ( 1 ) Child Welfare Services, 42 U.S.C. 620, *et seq.*
( 2 ) Developmental Disabilities, 42 U.S.C. 6021-6030.
( 3 ) Aging Supportive Services and Senior Centers, 42 U.S.C. 3030d.
( 4 ) Congregate Meals for the Elderly, 42 U.S.C. 3030e.
( 5 ) Home Delivered Meals for the Elderly, 42 U.S.C. 3030f.
( 6 ) Child Abuse and Neglect State Grants, 42 U.S.C. 5103(b).
( 7 ) Dependent Care Planning and Development State Grants, 42 U.S.C. 9871, et. seq.
( 8 ) Family Violence Prevention and Services, 42 U.S.C. 10401, *et seq.*
( 9 ) Children's Justice Act, 42 U.S.C. 5101, *et seq.*
( 10 ) Child Development Associate Scholarship Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 10901, *et seq.*
( 11 ) Emergency Community Services Homeless, 42 U.S.C. 11301.
( 12 ) Community Food and Nutrition, 42 U.S.C. 9910a.
( 13 ) Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals, 42 U.S.C. 9501.
( 14 ) Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness, 42 U.S.C. 290 (cc-21) *et seq.*
[56 FR 38346, Aug. 13, 1991] Footnotes -
97.12
[1] Certain Public Health Service programs for which the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands may apply for a consolidated grant.
[2] See footnote 1 in § 97.12(a)(1).
[3] See footnote 1 in § 97.12(a)(1).
[4] See footnote 1 in § 97.12(a)(1).
Argued and submitted February 29,

reversed and remanded for reconsideration March 27, 1996

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Richard R. Elizondo, Claimant. SAIF CORPORATION and Coliseum Texaco, *Petitioners, v.*Richard R. ELIZONDO, *Respondent.*

(WCB No. 92-06556; CA A80129)

914 P2d 35

Julene M. Quinn, Special Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for petitioners. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Andrew H. Josephson waived appearance for respondent.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Haselton, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration. *Windom v. Dodge Logging,*139 Or App 130, 910 P2d 1175 (1996); *Volk v. America West Airlines,*135 Or App 565, 899 P2d 746 (1995), *rev den*322 Or 645 (1996).
§ 10.217 Merchant mariner credential application and examination locations. ( a ) Applicants for an MMC may apply to any of the Regional Examination Centers (RECs) or any other location designated by the Coast Guard. Applicants may contact the National Maritime Center at 100 Forbes Drive, Martinsburg, WV 25404, by telephone 1-888-427-5662 or 304-433-3400, or by email at *IASKNMC@uscg.mil .* A list of locations approved for application submittal is available through the Coast Guard Web site at *http://www.uscg.mil/nmc .*
( b ) *Exam Locations.* ( 1 ) Coast Guard units abroad may conduct exams for ratings at locations other than the RECs, but are not prepared to conduct practical examinations.
( 2 ) The Coast Guard may designate additional exam facilities/locations to provide services to applicants for MMCs.
[USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 77890, Dec. 24, 2013]
#### Rich *&*Brothers *v.*Fidelity and Deposit Company.

1. This case is controlled by the ease of *Fidelity Co.*v. *Rich,*122 *Ga.*506, except as to the question of estoppel.

2. The plaintiffs obtained a judgment against a guardian upon an open account, which was not properly a liability of the ward’s estate, and the refusal, to pay which did not (under the decision above referred to) constitute a breach of the bond. After that decision another suit was brought for the same cause of action, with the additional allegations that the guardian had received the proceeds of a life-insurance policy in which the wards had an interest; that the surety filed a petition to the ordinary, alleging that the guardian had mismanaged the estate and violated the law, and seeking to be relieved from the bond; that the *467plaintiffs as creditors objected to the discharge of the surety; that in answer to the rule nisi the guardian filed final returns, in which she included the amounts due to the plaintiffs; that the surety knew of this and was a party to the crediting of such sums in the final returns; that the sole purpose was’ to relieve it as surety on the bond; and that if .such amounts had not been allowed in the returns as constituting a part •of the expenditures of the guardian, they would now be in the hands of the guardian to liquidate petitioners’ claims. It did not -appear that the surety was discharged. *Held:*(1) That this did not operate as an ■estoppel by judgment on the surety, because the allowance of the returns was not a judgment in a proceeding to which the surety and the present plaintiffs were parties, although the making of the return by the guardian may have resulted from a proceeding on the part of the surety to ■obtain a discharge from the bond. (2) The statements in the .return of the guardian were not solemn admissions in judieio by the surety, although the latter may have instigated or approved them, and they may have been for its benefit. (3) Considered as an estoppel by admission •or in pais, no action on the part of the creditors in reliance upon such statements appears, and no injury resulting to them. (4) Whether or not the making of such a return and the participation therein by the surety operated as a fraud upon the wards or would furnish any basis for action by them, relatively to the creditors now suing, a return claiming that such items were *proper*to be allowed to the guardian, and the •obtaining of the approval of the return, although participated in by the .surety, would not render it liable to such creditors for the amount of ■their claim, if in fact it had not been paid, and was not one the refusal to pay which would in law make the surety liable on the bond.

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O.' J., absent.*

Argued May 29,-

Decided August 13, 1906.

Action on bond. Before Judge Pendleton. Fulton superior court. December 5, 1905.

*J. IS. & L. F.*McClelland, for plaintiffs.

*Rosser &*Brandon, for defendant.

*■Judgment affirmed.*
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 53425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21328]

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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the Export-Import Bank 
of the United States

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

    Time and Place: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 from 9:00 a.m.-1:00 
p.m. The meeting will be held at the Export-Import Bank in the Main 
Conference Room--11th floor, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20571.
SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee was established November 30, 1983, to 
advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and to provide comments 
for inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import Bank of the United 
States to Congress.
    Agenda: Subcommittee reports and deliberations regarding 
recommendations to the Bank and informational briefings by Bank staff.
    Public Participation: The meeting will be open to public 
participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral 
questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written 
statement(s) before or after the meeting. If members of the public wish 
to attend, they must contact Niki Shepperd by 3 p.m. on September 16, 
2014. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such as a sign language 
interpreter) or other special accommodations, please contact, by 
September 16, 2014, Niki Shepperd. Niki Shepperd can be reached at: 811 
Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571, at niki.shepperd@exim.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Niki 
Shepperd, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571, at 
niki.shepperd@exim.gov.

Lloyd Ellis,
Program Specialist, Office of the General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2014-21328 Filed 9-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
§ 131.310 List of crew members and offshore workers. ( a ) The master of each vessel shall keep a correct list containing the name of each person that embarks upon and disembarks from the vessel.
( b ) The list required by paragraph (a) of this section must be prepared before the vessel's departure on a voyage, and deposited ashore— ( 1 ) At the facility from which the crew members and offshore workers embarked;
( 2 ) In a well-marked place at the vessel's normal berth; or
( 3 ) With a representative of the owner or managing operator of the vessel.
# C_2008214EN.01001201.xml

| 22.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 214/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 214/12

---

Communication from the Minister for Economic Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the basis of Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

(2008/C 214/05)

The Minister for Economic Affairs hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block F6 as indicated on the map appended as Annex 3 to the Mining Regulation (Mijnbouwregeling) (Government Gazette (Staatscourant) 2002, No 245).

Mijnbouwregeling

Staatscourant

With reference to the Directive mentioned in the introduction and Article 15 of the Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet) (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees (Staatsblad) 2002, No 542), the Minister for Economic Affairs hereby invites interested parties to submit a competing application for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block F6 of the Dutch continental shelf.

Mijnbouwwet

Staatsblad

The Minister for Economic Affairs is the competent authority for the granting of authorisations. The criteria, conditions and requirements referred to in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 6(2) of the abovementioned Directive are set out in the Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet) (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2002, No 542).

Mijnbouwwet

Applications may be submitted during the 13 weeks following the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to: De Minister van Economische Zaken, ter attentie van J.C. De Groot, directeur Energiemarkt, ALP A/562, Bezuidenhoutseweg 30, Postbus 20101, 2500 EC Den Haag, Nederland.

Official Journal of the European Union

Applications received after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

A decision on the applications will be taken not later than twelve months after this period has expired.

Further information can be obtained from the following telephone number: (31) 70 379 77 62 (contact person: E.J. Hoppel).

---
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________
No. 96-11202

____________________

MERCHANTS FAST MOTOR LINES INC PLAINTIFF-COUNTER DEFENDANT APPELLANT-CROSS-APPELLEE
versus

UNION OF TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEES DEFENDANT-COUNTER CLAIMANTAPPELLEE-CROSS-APPELLANT

UNION OF TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEES PLAINTIFF-APPELLEECROSS-APPELLANT

versus

MERCHANTS FAST MOTOR LINES INC DEFENDANT-APPELLANTCROSS-APPELLEE

___________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Abilene (1:96-CV-89-C and 1:96-CV-161-C)

___________________________________________________ September 8, 1997 Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM: *

AFFIRMED for the reasons stated by United States District

Court, including Lonnie Springs submitting to, a nd passing, the
required Department of Transportation testing prior to resuming hissafety-sensitive duties.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-20112

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDDIE JONES, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CR-155-1)

_____________________________

September 25, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eddie Jones, Jr., appeals his sentence in a guilty-plea

conviction for possession with intent to distribute in excess of

50 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(A). He contends that the district court erred 1) in

declining to reduce Jones’s offense level two to four levels

under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 because he played a minor or minimal role
No. 97-20112

-2-

in the offense and 2) in refusing to depart downward because the

district court misunderstood its authority.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs and conclude that

no reversible error was committed. The district court did not

clearly err in declining to assign a minimal or minor participant

role to Jones. Moreover, the district court’s refusal to depart

downward was not error because the record does not demonstrate

that the district court was under the mistaken assumption that it

could not do so. See United States v. Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 94-

95 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2008068EN.01000901.xml

| 13.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/9

---

Commission notification pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 — Amendment of a public service obligation imposed on certain scheduled air services in Spain

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 68/06)

Pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92, the Spanish Government has decided to amend the public service obligation imposed on scheduled air services in the Balearic Islands as published in OJ C 307 of 17.12.2003 and amended in OJ C 95 of 22.4.2006 and OJ C 53 of 8.3.2007.

The new maximum single fare for each of the routes is as follows:

| (a) | Majorca-Ibiza: EUR 88; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Majorca-Ibiza: EUR 88;

| (b) | Majorca-Minorca: EUR 88; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Majorca-Minorca: EUR 88;

| (c) | Minorca-Ibiza: EUR 121. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Minorca-Ibiza: EUR 121.

The other requirements of the public service obligation published in OJ C 307 of 17.12.2003 remain unchanged.

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 3 (Friday, January 5, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 051104293-5344-02; I.D. 122806A]


Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Bluefish 
Fishery; Quota Transfers

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason quota transfer.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is 
transferring 20,000 lb (9,072 kg) of commercial bluefish quota to the 
State of Rhode Island from its 2006 quota. By this action, NMFS adjusts 
the quotas and announces the revised commercial quota for each state 
involved.

DATES: Effective December 29, 2006 through December 31, 2006, unless 
NMFS publishes a superseding document in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Potts, Fishery Management 
Specialist, (978) 281-9341, fax (978) 281-9135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations governing the Atlantic bluefish 
fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual 
specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the 
coastal states from Florida through Maine. The process to set the 
annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state are 
described in Sec.  648.160.
    Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence 
of the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), 
can transfer or combine bluefish commercial quota under Sec.  
648.160(f). The Regional Administrator is required to consider the 
criteria set forth in Sec.  648.160(f)(1) in the evaluation of requests 
for quota transfers or combinations.
    Massachusetts has agreed to transfer 20,000 lb (9,072 kg) of its 
2006 commercial quota to Rhode Island. The Regional Administrator has 
determined that the criteria set forth in Sec.  648.160(f)(1) have been 
met for each of these transfers. The revised quotas for calendar year 
2006 are: Rhode Island, 622,101 lb (282,180 kg) and Massachusetts, 
514,823 lb (233,520 kg).

Classification

    This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from 
review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: December 28, 2006.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 06-9994 Filed 12-29-06; 1:29 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
#### Samuel Baron, Respondent, *v.*Jacob Cohen, *Appellant, Impleaded, etc.*Jacob Mack *v.*The Same.

Orders reversed and motion granted, so far as the entries relate to proceedings in the case, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
§ 142.226 Firefighter's outfit. Each towing vessel 79 feet or more in length operating on oceans and coastwise routes that does not have an installed fixed fire-extinguishing system must have the following: ( a ) At least two firefighter's outfits that meet NFPA 1971 (incorporated by reference, see § 136.112 of this subchapter); and
( b ) Two self-contained breathing apparatus of the pressure demand, open circuit type, approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), under 42 CFR part 84. The breathing apparatus must have a minimum 30-minute air supply and full facepiece.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18

OF THE UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Contracted Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John L. Corn, Chief Executive Officer 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, that:



(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/John L. Corn

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

JOHN L. CORN

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer

Contracted Services, Inc.



March 31, 2007
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 1 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 1 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 1 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 1 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 1 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 5 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 1 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 1 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 7 of 7