alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 116.730 Crew accommodations on vessels of more than 19.8 meters (65 feet) in length with overnight accommodations for more than 49 passengers.

A crew accommodation space on a vessel of more than 19.8 meters (65 feet) in length with overnight accommodations for more than 49 passengers must comply with §§ 72.20-10; 72.20-15; 72.20-20(d); 72.20-25 (a) and (d) 72.20-30; 72.20-35; 72.20-45; 72.20-50; and 72.20-55 in subchapter H of this chapter.

[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 900, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by USCG-2000-7790, 65 FR 58462, Sept. 29, 2000; USCG-2002-13058, 67 FR 61729, Sept. 30, 2002]
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, December 5, 2006, to consider the following matters:

## Summary Agenda

No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the discussion agenda.

Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' meetings.

Summary reports, status reports, and reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the Board of Directors.

Memorandum and resolution re: Proposed FDIC Corporate Investment Policy.

Memorandum and resolution re: Amendments to Part 313 to Authorize the FDIC to Refer Delinquent Criminal Restitution Debt to the Treasury Offset Program for Collection.

## Discussion Agenda

Memorandum and resolution re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Risk-Based Capital Guidelines; Capital Maintenance: Domestic Capital Modifications.

Memorandum and resolution re: Extension of Comment Period for Basel II and Market Risk Notices of Proposed Rulemaking and the Proposed Reports Notices for those Rulemakings.

Memorandum and resolution re: Proposed 2007 Corporate Operating Budget.

Memorandum and resolution re: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Large-Bank Deposit Insurance Determination Modernization.

The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.

The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees needing such assistance should call (703) 562-6067 (Voice or TTY), to make necessary arrangements.

Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) 898-7122.

Dated: November 28, 2006.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 06-9496 Filed 11-29-06; 11:33 am]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

JOHN DONALD CHADWICK, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-c-13434 

v Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

 Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris 

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

 On September 4, 2014, Defendant Bank of America removed this suit from the Midland 

County Circuit Court. Plaintiff John Chadwick had filed a pro se complaint alleging that Bank 

of America had wrongly foreclosed on his property at 4274 E. Freeland Road, Freeland, 

Michigan 48623. 

 On October 3, 2014, Bank of America filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a 

claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On March 13, 2015, Magistrate 

Judge Patricia T. Morris issued a report recommending that Bank of America’s motion to 

dismiss be granted. Judge Morris noted Chadwick had not alleged “a defect or irregularity in the 

foreclosure process sufficient to provide standing under Michigan law to have the foreclosure set 

aside after the lapse of the redemption period.” Rep. & Rec. 7. Moreover, Chadwick had not 

alleged that he suffered any prejudice from any defect or irregularity. Accordingly, Judge Morris 

concluded that Chadwick had not stated a claim for which relief could be granted. 

Although Magistrate Judge Morris’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action 

may object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the 

1:14-cv-13434-TLL-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 04/09/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 188
- 2 - 

report, neither Plaintiff nor Defendants filed any objections. The election not to file objections to 

the Magistrate Judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Electing not to file objections to the report and 

recommendation waives any further right to appeal. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 

(ECF No. 15) is ADOPTED. 

 It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: April 9, 2015 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail and on John Donald Chadwick, Jr., 4374 East Freeland 

Rd, Freeland, MI 48623 by first class U.S. mail on April 9, 2015. 

 s/Karri Sandusky 

 KARRI SANDUSKY 

1:14-cv-13434-TLL-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 04/09/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 189
## SERVED: MARCH 11, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

In the Matter of: TGIFREIGHT

., 

### FAA DocketNo. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS No. FAA-2010-1079

,, 

### ORDER SETTING OUT BRIEFING SCHEDULE The parties have agreed on the following Post Hearing {3riefing Schedule, which is hereby established: · 1. The Post-Hearing BriefofComplainant Federal Aviation Administration shall be filed on or before April1, 2013. 2. The Post-Hearing BriefofRespondent TGI Freight shall be filed on or before May 6, 2013. 3. The Rebuttal Briefofthe Federal Aviation Adtpinistration, ifany, shall be filed on or before May 24, 2013. : 

# l·t!.alJ

# c**~c~ ~-.**  Richard C. Goodwin U.S. 

### Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List

### SERVICELIST ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, WilburWright Building-'-Suite 2W1000 1

Rebecca 

### J. Hozubin, Respondent's Counsel Wilkerson Hozubin 310 K Street, Suite 405 Anchorage, AK 99501 TEL: 907-276-5297 FAX: 907-276-5291 

### ONE COPY

Howard L. Martin, Jr., Complainant's Counsel Regional Counsel, Office ofRegional Counsel, AAL-7 Alaskan Region Federal Aviation Administration 222 W. 7th Avenue #14 Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 TEL: 907-271-5273 FAX: 907-271-2800 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,AdministrativeLaw Judge U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.(Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 StaffAssistant 202-366-5121 FAX: 202-366-7536 FAA DocketNo. CP10NM0012 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orbyexpedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., WilburWright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.

2
§ 111.33-9 Ventilation exhaust. The exhaust of each forced-air semiconductor converter system must: ( a ) Terminate in a location other than a hazardous location under Subpart 111.105 of this part; and
( b ) Not impinge upon any other electric device.
[CGD 74-125A, 47 FR 15236, Apr. 8, 1982, as amended by USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16362, Mar. 16, 2023]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

RYAN BROWN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 14-13922 

OAKLAND COUNTY JAIL, HON. TERRENCE G. BERG 

 HON. R. STEVEN WHALEN 

Defendant. 

 / 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. 34) 

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s July 

24, 2017 Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 34), recommending that Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 32) be GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s complaint 

be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 

The law provides that either party may serve and file written objections “[w]ithin 

fourteen days after being served with a copy” of a report and recommendation. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court will make a “de novo determination of those 

portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” Id. Where, as here, neither 

party objects to the report, the district court is not obligated to independently 

review the record. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985). The Court will 
2 

therefore accept the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation of July 24, 2017 as 

this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Whalen’s Report 

and Recommendation of July 24, 2017 is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is 

GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 18, 2017 s/Terrence G. Berg 

TERRENCE G. BERG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on August 18, 

2017, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to all parties. 

 s/A. Chubb 

Case Manager
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Criminal No. 14-cr-20555 

Plaintiff, 

v. Honorable George Caram Steeh 

D-1 AYAD K. YATOOMA, 

Defendant. 

______________________________/ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-20774 

v. Honorable George Caram Steeh 

D-1 ADNAN KEJBOU, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________/ 

AMENDED PRELIMINARY ORDERS OF FORFEITURE

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, the Preliminary Orders 

of Forfeiture entered against Defendant Ayad K. Yatooma on April 7, 2015 

(Docket No. 8, Case No. 14-20555), and against Defendant Adnan Kejbou on April 

7, 2015 (Docket No. 10, Case No. 14-20774), are hereby amended to add 18 U.S.C. 

§ 981(a)(1)(C) together with 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) as additional statutory authority 

for the forfeiture described in the Orders. The addition of these statutory 

provisions supplements, but does not replace the statutory authority included in the 

2:14-cr-20555-GCS-RSW Doc # 18 Filed 12/07/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 131
2 

original Preliminary Orders of Forfeiture. The original Preliminary Orders of 

Forfeiture referenced above are fully incorporated herein and shall not be amended 

in any other respect. 

****************************************************************** 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: December 6, 2016 

 s/George Caram Steeh 

HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2:14-cr-20555-GCS-RSW Doc # 18 Filed 12/07/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 132
From: "Neil P. ReifP' <relff@sandlerrelff.com> 

To: "jspilizewski@fec.gov" <jspiiizewski@fec.gov>, 

Date: 01/22/201505:18 PM 

Subject: Response to iAR for New American City 

Jeff, just wanted to let you know that we have filed amended reports-in response to the PAR. The 

di 

reports were filed on Tuesday, January 20 . We do not intend to file any narrative responses to the PAR. 

Let me know if you have any questions. 

Neil P. Reiff 

Sandler, Reiff, Lamb, Rosenstein a Birkenstock, P.C. 

1025 Vermont Ave, NW 

Suite 300 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

w. (202)479 - 1111 

f. (202)479- 1115 

This rhessage is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may 

contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure, if the reader of this 

message is not the intended recipient or any employee or agent responsible for delivering the message 

to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of 

this communication is strictly prohibited, if you have received this communication in error, please 

notify us immediately by email. Thank you for your cooperation. 

IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform 

you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is 

not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under 

the internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any 

transaction or matter addressed herein.
# C_2008207EN.01000101.xml

| 14.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2008/C 207/01)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 2.7.2008 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 697/07 |
| Member State | United Kingdom |
| Region | Scotland |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | QMS Meat Generic Advertising Scheme |
| Legal basis | Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006
  Quality Meat Scotland Order 2007 |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Generic advertising |
| Form of aid | Provision of services on preferential terms |
| Budget | Annual amount: GBP 1 million (approximately EUR 1,25 million)
  Overall budget: GBP 6 million (approximately EUR 7,5 million) |
| Intensity | 100 % |
| Duration | Date of Commission's approval until 31 March 2014 |
| Economic sectors | Agriculture |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Division |
| Pentland House |
| Area 1e |
| Robbs Loan |
| Edinburgh EH14 1TY |
| United Kingdom |

Date of adoption of the decision

2.7.2008

Reference number of the aid

N 697/07

Member State

United Kingdom

Region

Scotland

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

QMS Meat Generic Advertising Scheme

Legal basis

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

Quality Meat Scotland Order 2007

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Generic advertising

Form of aid

Provision of services on preferential terms

Budget

Annual amount: GBP 1 million (approximately EUR 1,25 million)

Overall budget: GBP 6 million (approximately EUR 7,5 million)

Intensity

100 %

Duration

Date of Commission's approval until 31 March 2014

Economic sectors

Agriculture

Name and address of the granting authority

Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Division

Pentland House

Area 1e

Robbs Loan

Edinburgh EH14 1TY

United Kingdom

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v.

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 14-13017

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On April 7, 2014, the parties informed the court in an informal communication

that Plaintiff had agreed to dismiss all remaining claims against the Toyota Defendants.

Despite an assurance that a dismissal would be forthcoming, no stipulation has thus far

been presented. Accordingly, on the strength of counsels’ representations, 

IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any

party may reopen this matter for any reason prior to June 30, 2015 by filing a “Notice of

Reopening,” and the case will be reinstated, with all rights and remedies preserved. 

Additionally, any time before June 30, 2015, the parties may substitute this order with

their own stipulated order of dismissal. After June 30, 2015, the dismissal will become

with prejudice. 

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 30, 2015

2:14-cv-13017-RHC-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 04/30/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 166
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, April 30, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

C:\Users\wagner\AppData\Local\Temp\notesDF63F8\14-13017.AVS.Dismissal.chd.wpd

2

2:14-cv-13017-RHC-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 04/30/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 167
Submitted on record and brief January 5,

affirmed February 7,

petition for review denied August 13, 1996 (324 Or 78)

#### Paul D. TESTA and Sharon C. Testa, *Petitioners, v.*CLACKAMAS COUNTY, *Respondent.*

(95-045 CA A90822)

911 P2d 348

Paul D. Testa and Sharon C. Testa filed the brief *pro sese.*

No appearance for respondent.

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

DEITS, P. J.

*15DEITS, P. J.

Petitioners seek review of LUBA’s memorandum decision, issued pursuant to ORS 197.835(16), affirming Clackamas County’s approval of a farm dwelling. Petitioners appear *pro sese.*Neither the county nor the applicants have appeared. We affirm.

As we discussed in *Petrie v. City of Lake Oswego,*139 Or App 8, 911 P2d 346 (1996), the memorandum decision format for LUBA’s decisions, authorized by ORS 197.835(16), may sometimes present impediments to our meaningful review of LUBA’s decisions. As we noted in *Petrie,*there may be cases where it will be necessary to remand such decisions to LUBA.

The basic rule, in this context as in others, is that it is the job of the appealing party to demonstrate error. However, that rule may have to be applied flexibly in our review of memorandum decisions, because the form of the decision might sometimes affect the party’s ability to make the necessary demonstration. In this case, we have had considerable difficulty fully understanding petitioners’ arguments. In view of the absence of a more extensive written decision by LUBA, and the lack of clarity in the arguments presented, it would have been helpful to us for respondent to have appeared. On balance, however, we conclude that the difficulties with petitioners’ arguments are not due to the brevity of LUBA’s opinion or the absence of a responsive appearance. The problem here is that petitioners simply have not made a presentation that adequately articulates a colorable basis for reversal or remand. Petitioners’ failure to make that demonstration is not due to any obstacle placed in their path by the form of LUBA’s decision.

Affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 148
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59783, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 148.51 Temperature readings. When Subpart D of this part sets a temperature limit for loading or transporting a material, apply the following rules: ( a ) The temperature of the material must be measured 20 to 36 centimeters (8 to 14 inches) below the surface at 3 meter (10 foot) intervals over the length and width of the stockpile or cargo hold.
( b ) The temperature must be measured at every spot in the stockpile or cargo hold that shows evidence of heating.
( c ) Before loading or transporting the material, all temperatures measured must be below the temperature limit set in Subpart D of this part.
f ^ 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

Office of Regional Counsel 

if\i 

FEB 1 6 2010 

EARING OOCKET 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles. CA 90009-2007 

(310)725-7110 

(310) 725-6816 facsimile 

o 

January 28, 2009 

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearmgs, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

(202) 366-7536 

Dear Judge Goodwin: 

Re: In the Matter of Threshold Air Charter. Inc.; 

FAA Docket No. CP09WP0006 f^P^ > . 0 0 ] ' 60^ 5 

In accordance with § 13.215 of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions (14 C.F.R. 

13.215), the undersigned attorney, on behalf of the Complainant, respectfially withdraws the 

complaint in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

NAOMI TSUDA 

Regional Counsel 

J 

cr:> 

1 ) 

3 ' 

/ J 

O 

By: 

cc: 

O^a J.iK)scano 

Attorney 

Steven L. Graff, Esq. (Facsunile to 951-303-0723 and Regular U.S. Mail) 

Hearing Docket (Regular U.S. Mail)
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**As independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by referencein Registration Statements Nos. 333-06199, 333-34019 and 333-99311 on Form S-8 and Nos. 333-91679and 333-30194 on Form S-3, of our report dated February 9, 2006, relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. as of December 31, 2005 and 2004 and the relatedconsolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of thethree years in the period ended December 31, 2005, included in the 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Matrixx Initiatives, Inc./s/ Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C.MAYER HOFFMAN MCCANN P.C.Phoenix, Arizona
#### Banbury v. Sherin.

(Syllabus by the Court.

Opinion filed August 19, 1893.)

Appeal from circuit court, Marshall county. Hon. A. W. Campbell, Judge.

Action to recover damages for wrongfully holding real property after the expiration of a term of tenancy.

This case was decided by the court June 26, 1893. In an opinion found in 4 S. D.--, 55 N. W. 723, the judgment of the lower court was affirmed. Defendant applied for a rehearing. This opinion is upon the application.

Denied.

Kellam, J.

This is an application for a rehearing. The case is reported in 4 S. D. 55 N. W. Rep. 723. The question in the case as presented by the evidence was, what notice, if any, is required to terminate a lease originally made for one *167year, but renewed by the tenant holding over and the landlord accepting rent? See Section 3741, Comp. Laws. We say this was the question presented by the facts conceded to be established on the trial, and appellant so states in his petition for rehearing. The complaint, however, alleges no specific term for which the premises were leased, but averred that the lease was “verbal, and was from month to month,” and further alleged a thirty-days notice in writing to the defendant to quit.. Upon the trial, defendant objected to evidence under the complaint on the ground that it stated no cause of action, in that it did not show a termination of the lease. In disposing of this question we said the notice alleged ‘ ‘was sufficient to terminate such a lease,” under Section 3742, Comp. Laws. On the trial, however, it was proved by the defendant himself, now appellant, and the facts in this respect were not in dispute, that the original lease .was in writing, and was for the definite term of one year; that at the end of the year the tenant held over, and the landlord accepted rent. This alone, and without qualifying facts, under Section 3741, Comp. Laws, “renewed the hiring on the same terms and for the same time;” that is, the parties were in the same position as though they had actually made a new written lease for one year. If no notice was necessary to terminate the first lease, then no notice was necessary to terminate the second lease. What we said as to the necessity and sufficiency of the thirty days notice was in reference to the facts and the question then being discussed, to-wit, the sufficiency of the notice alleged in the complaint to terminate such a lease as was therein alleged. Section 3742, upon which appellant relies, does not furnish the rule for this case. That section, by its express terms, applies only to cases where the hiring is for no specified term. Such a lease is terminated by notice, but a lease for a specified term is terminated by its expiration, without action by either party. Such was this case. We therefore regarded it as unimportant to inquire whether the notice which was given would have been sufficient under conditions or in a case which required notice.

The petition for rehearing is denied.