alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Civ. No. 2085.

Fourth Appellate District.

June 14, 1939.]

#### JOSEPHINE VITRANO et al., Appellants, v. WESTGATE SEA PRODUCTS CO. (a Corporation), Respondent.

A. T. Procopio for Appellants.

*363Wright, Monroe, Harden & Thomas for Respondent.

BARNARD, P. J.

The respondent has moved to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that no brief was filed by the appellants within the time provided for in the rules governing this court and that there was an unreasonable delay in this respect.  After notice of the motion was filed but prior to the time set for making the motion, an opening brief was filed on behalf of the appellants. Similar circumstances have been held sufficient to justify the denial of such a motion. *(Toth*v. *Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,*113 Cal. App. 55 [297 Pac. 564] ; *Graybiel*v. *Consolidated Assns., Ltd.,*14 Cal. App. (2d) 547 [58 Pac. (2d) 665]; *Hall*v. *Wolford,*22 Cal. App. (2d) 537 [71 Pac. (2d) 596].) While the delay here was longer than that in the cases cited we are inclined to apply the same rule in view of certain circumstances which here appear.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

Marks, J., concurred.
|   | (3) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (4) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:      April 15, 2010  | By:   | /s/ David Bruce Hong          |
|----------------------------------|-----------------|------------------------------------|
|                             |            | David      Bruce Hong         |
|                             |            | Chief      Financial Officer  |

----
```

[111th Congress Public Law 235]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 2495]]

Public Law 111-235
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
405 West Second Street in Dixon, Illinois, as the ``President Ronald W. 
 Reagan Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Aug. 16, 2010 -  [H.R. 5278]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PRESIDENT RONALD W. REAGAN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 405 West Second Street in Dixon, Illinois, shall be known and 
designated as the ``President Ronald W. Reagan Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``President 
Ronald W. Reagan Post Office Building''.

    Approved August 16, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5278:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010):
            June 9, considered and passed House.
            July 30, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
§ 140.210 Responsibilities of the master and crew. ( a ) The safety of the towing vessel is the responsibility of the master and includes: ( 1 ) Adherence to the provisions of the COI;
( 2 ) Compliance with the applicable provisions of this subchapter;
( 3 ) Compliance with the TSMS, if one is applicable to the vessel; and
( 4 ) Supervision of all persons onboard in carrying out their assigned duties.
( b ) If the master or officer in charge of a navigational watch believes it is unsafe for the vessel to proceed, that an operation endangers the vessel or crew, or that an unsafe condition exists, he or she must ensure that adequate corrective action is taken and must not proceed until it is safe to do so.
( c ) Nothing in this subpart may be construed in a manner which limits the master or officer in charge of a navigational watch, at his or her own responsibility, from diverting from the route prescribed in the COI or taking such steps as deemed necessary and prudent to assist vessels in distress or for other emergency conditions.
( d ) It is the responsibility of the crew to: ( 1 ) Adhere to the provisions of the COI;
( 2 ) Comply with the applicable provisions of this subchapter;
( 3 ) Comply with the TSMS, if one is applicable to the vessel;
( 4 ) Ensure that the master or officer in charge of a navigational watch is made aware of all known aspects of the condition of the vessel, including: ( i ) Those vessels being pushed, pulled, or hauled alongside; and
( ii ) Equipment and other accessories used for pushing, pulling, or hauling alongside other vessels.
( 5 ) Minimize any distraction from the operation of the vessel or performance of duty; and
( 6 ) Report unsafe conditions to the master or officer in charge of a navigational watch and take effective action to prevent accidents.
#### John Q. A. Woodcock, *Respondent, v.*Alexander Smith, *Appe*llant.

Judgment of the Justices’ and County Court reversed. *Held,*that in view of the defendant’s evidence that he sold clover seed from the same lot to the witnesses Burns, Crittenden and Dexter that he did the plaintiff, the questions put to them were competent and should have been admitted.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Bernard Schwartz, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Loral
Space & Communications Ltd.;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.
    
    [Intentionally omitted];4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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;(c)
    
    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(d)
    
    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(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the 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. /s/ Bernard L. SchwartzBernard L. Schwartz
Chief Executive OfficerMay 12, 2004
#### WILLIAM H. DENNISTON, as Overseer of the Poor, etc., Respondent, *v.*DAVID TRIMMER, Appellant.

*Action to recover a penalty for a violation of the excise law*— *that money was loaned by the defendant to the plaintiff, as overseer of the poor, cannot be set up as' a counter-claim*— *An improper pleading used in a Justices' Court cannot be made the basis of a demand for a new trial on appeal in the County Court.*

Appeal from an order and .judgment of the County Court of Monroe county, affirming with costs the judgment of a Justices’ Court.

The action was brought to recover a penalty of fifty dollars for selling liquor without a. license, contrary to the excise laws of the State.

The answer set up a general denial, also a counter-claim against the plaintiff as overseer of the poor of the town of Parma, for money loaned and advanced by the defendant to the plaintiff in the sum of $118.

The case was tried before Russell C. Bates, Esq., a justice of the, peace of the town of Parma, on the 24th day of October, 18Y8, and a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for fifty dollars, with costs.

A demurrer interposed by the plaintiff to the counter-claim set up by the defendant was overruled.

An appeal was taken from the judgment of the Justicos’ Court to the County Court of Monroe county, for a new trial in that court.

When the case was reached on the calendar in the County Court, on motion of the respondent’s attorney, the court ordered that all that part of the defendant’s answer which sets up a counterclaim be stricken out, and that the cause be transferred to the law calendar of said County Court, and that the appeal be argued on the justice’s return.

The court, after hearing the argument upon the return, affirmed the judgment of the Justices’ Court, with costs.

The court at General Term said: “No statute is cited and we know of none which authorizes the overseers of poop of towns to borrow money, and the off-set or counter-claim therefor in a penal action, *394and the attempt of the defendant to set up a claim for money loaned to plaintiff as overseer of the poor, against a demand for a penalty for violation of the excise law, is without precedent and sanction of any statute, and the justice erred in overruling the demurrer interposed in the Justices’ Court to that portion of the answer.

“ When the cause was moved in the County Court, it was properly held by that court, that an improper pleading cannot be made the basis of a demand for a new trial in that court, under section 352 of the Code of Procedure.

*“*Such ruling the authorities sustain. *(Houghton*v. *Kenyon,*38 How., 107; *Johnson*v. How, 11 Alb. L. J., 128; *Nash*v. *White's Bank,*13 Weekly Dig., Ml; *Smith*v. *Rail,*67 N. Y., 48 ; *Pittman*v. *Ma/yor,*3 Hun, 370.) Hence the order made by the County Court was right.”

*George E. Bvpsom,*for the-1 appellant.

*John M. Da/oy,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Hardin, J.;

Smith, P. J., and Haight, J., concurred.

Judgment and order affirmed.
#### § 167.65-40 Draft.

The master of every nautical school ship over 50 gross tons shall, whenever leaving port, enter the maximum draft of his nautical school ship in the log book.
###### Editorial Note on Part 154

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 154.526 Piping joints: Flange connection.

Flange connections for pipe joints must meet § 56.30-10 and § 56.50-105 (a)(4) and (b)(4) of this chapter.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.171-15 Instructions. ( a ) Each suit must have instructions for its donning and use in an emergency. The instructions must be in English and must not exceed 50 words. Illustrations must be used in addition to the words. These instructions must be on the exterior of the storage case or printed on a waterproof card attached to the storage case or to the suit.
( b ) If the suit has an inflatable auxiliary means of buoyancy, separate instructions covering the use of the inflation valve must be provided on the suit near the valve or on a waterproof card attached near the valve.
( c ) Instructions for donning and use of the suit in an emergency must also be available in a format suitable for mounting on a bulkhead of a vessel. This placard must be in English, must include illustrations, and must include a warning as to the risk of entrapment in a submerged compartment due to the buoyancy of the suit.
( d ) Instructions for donning and use of the suit in an emergency, instructions for care and repair of the suit, and any additional necessary information concerning stowage and use of the suit on a vessel must be available in 81 ⁄ 2 × 11 loose-leaf format suitable for inclusion in the vessel's training manual.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 272 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2288 

[Report No. 111–481] 

To amend Public Law 106–392 to maintain annual base funding for the 

Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs through fiscal 

year 2023. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 6, 2009 

Mr. SALAZAR (for himself, Ms. MARKEY of Colorado, Mr. LUJA ́N, Ms. 

DEGETTE, Mr. HEINRICH, Mr. POLIS of Colorado, Mrs. LUMMIS, and 

Mr. TEAGUE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

MAY 18, 2010 

Additional sponsors: Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado, Mr. BISHOP

of Utah, Mr. MATHESON, and Mr. PERLMUTTER

MAY 18, 2010 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on May 6, 2009] 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2288 RH

A BILL 

To amend Public Law 106–392 to maintain annual base 

funding for the Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs through fiscal year 2023. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2288 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Endangered Fish Recov5 ery Programs Improvement Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF FISH RECOVERY PROGRAMS. 

7 Section 3(d)(2) of Public Law 106–392 (114 Stat. 

8 1604 and 1605) is amended by inserting at the end the fol9 lowing: ‘‘For fiscal years 2012 through 2023, there are here10 by authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be nec11 essary to provide for the annual base funding for the Recov12 ery Implementation Programs above and beyond the contin13 ued use of power revenues to fund the operation and main14 tenance of capital projects and monitoring.’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 272 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2288 

[Report No. 111–481] 

A BILL 

To amend Public Law 106–392 to maintain annual 

2023. Juan fish recovery programs through fiscal year base funding for the Upper Colorado and San 

MAY 18, 2010 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIAM R. PAGE, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-14377 

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL RISK MANAGEMENT 

AUTHORITY, and 

MICHAEL L. RHYNER, 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT 

 On November 14, 2014, Plaintiff William R. Page initiated this case against Defendants 

Michigan Municipal Risk Management Authority and Michael L. Rhyner. ECF No. 1. In his 

complaint Page alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and 

the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”) against both Defendants. Id. 

 On January 15, 2015, Defendant Rhyner filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal Pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 9. In his motion he seeks dismissal of Count I 

of Page’s complaint, his ADEA claim, insofar as it is pled against Rhyner as an individual. He 

argues that the ADEA does not provide for individual liability and so Page has failed to state a 

claim against him with respect to that count. 

 Five days after Rhyner filed his motion to dismiss, Page amended his complaint as of 

right. ECF No. 14; Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (allowing a party to amend a pleading as a matter 

of course within 21 days of being served a motion under Rule 12(b)). Page’s Amended 

1:14-cv-14377-TLL-PTM Doc # 15 Filed 01/29/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 66
- 2 - 

Complaint no longer alleges that Rhyner violated the ADEA and alleges Count I only against 

Michigan Municipal Risk Management Authority. ECF No. 14 at 4-5. 

 When an amended complaint is filed, the prior complaint is superseded and rendered 

moot. See Smith & Nephew Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 113 F. App’x 99, 102 (6th Cir. 2004). In 

general, then, “motions directed at the superseded pleading generally are to be denied as moot.” 

Mize v. Blue Ridge Bank, No. 8:12-CV-2763-JMC-JDA, 2013 WL 1766659, at *1 (D.S.C. Feb. 

12, 2013) (collecting cases). But, if the amended pleading does not cure the defects raised by the 

motion directed at the superseded pleading, denying the motion as moot “would be to exalt form 

over substance.” Wright, Miller, et al., 6 FED. PRAC. & PROC. CIV. § 1476 (3d ed.). Here, 

however, the defects addressed by Rhyner’s motion to dismiss have been cured by Page’s 

Amended Complaint. For that reason, Rhyner’s motion to dismiss will be denied as moot. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant Rhyner’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 9, is 

DENIED as moot. 

Dated: January 29, 2015 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

 

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 on January 29, 2015. 

 s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

 TRACY A. JACOBS 

1:14-cv-14377-TLL-PTM Doc # 15 Filed 01/29/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 67
§ 117.210 Rescue boats. ( a ) Each vessel must carry at least one rescue boat unless the cognizant OCMI determines that: ( 1 ) The vessel is sufficiently maneuverable, arranged, and equipped to allow the crew to recover a helpless person from the water;
( 2 ) Recovery of a helpless person can be observed from the operating station; and
( 3 ) The vessel does not regularly engage in operations that restrict its maneuverability.
( b ) In general, a rescue boat must be a small, light-weight boat with built-in buoyancy and be capable of being readily launched and easily maneuvered. In addition, it must be of adequate proportion to permit taking an unconscious person on board without capsizing.
( c ) On a vessel of more than 19.8 meters (65 feet) in length operating on protected waters, a rescue boat approved under approval series 160.056 is acceptable in meeting the intent of this section. On a vessel of more than 19.8 meters operating on exposed or partially protected waters, a rescue boat approved under approval series 160.156 is acceptable in meeting the intent of this section. On a vessel of not more than 19.8 meters (65 feet) in length, a required rescue boat must be acceptable to the cognizant OCMI.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 911, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51351, Sept. 30, 1997; 62 FR 64305, Dec. 5, 1997]
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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.

-1- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Consolidated Case Nos. 01-60051, 01-60052, 01-60053, 01-60054, 01-60055, 01-60056, 01-60057, 01-60058, 01-60059, 01-60060, 01-60061, 01-60062, 01-60063, 01-60064, 01-60239, 01-60240,

01-60241, 01-60242, 01-60259

BANK ONE, N.A.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

BESSIE LAKE, ROBBIE HAYMER, CALVIN EPPS, WILLIE JONES, OSCAR MCDONALD, BOBBIE HARR IS; DIANE HARRIS, GEORGE BEACHAM; JOYCE BEACHAM, BARRY BLACKSTONE; TERESA BLACKSTONE, CLARENCE COATES,
SHIRL EY EVANS, TANYA GEORGE; BARRY GEORGE, MABLE GRIFFIN, MARY MEEKS, WILLIE COOK, MARY BUCHANAN , PHILOMENA COWEN, CHARLES MALLETT, HENRY HORTON AND MINNIE DONALDSON,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi

( 5:00-CV-227-BN, et al )

April 5, 2002

Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *-2-

Appellants challenge the district court’s ruling granting Bank

One’s Motions to Compel Arbitration and denying their motions for

joinder and dismiss al, discovery, and abstention. After hearing

oral arguments, and considering the briefs and record excepts, the

judgments of the district court granting Bank One’s Motions to

Compel Arbitration and denying the Appellant’s motions for joinder

and dismissal, discov ery, and abstention are affirmed for

essentially the reasons stated in our opinion in Bank One, N.A. v.

Boyd, 00-60805, and the reasons stated by the district court in its

January 2, 2001, opinion in Bank One, N.A. v. Coates, 3:00-cv671LN.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                                (18 U.S.C. 1350)

      The undersigned, Robert S. Herlin, President and Chief Executive Officer
of Natural Gas Systems, Inc. (the "Company"), certifies in connection with the
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report")") pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes
Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of
the 27th day of September, 2005.


/s/   ROBERT S. HERLIN
-----------------------------
      Robert S. Herlin
      Chief Executive Officer