alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### DANIEL HENDERSON ET UX. ET AL. v. ABBOTTS ALDERNEY DAIRIES, INCORPORATED.

Decided May 4, 1929.

*455Before Gummeke, Chjee Justice, and Justice Pakkee.

Eor the rule, *Howard L. Miller.*

*Contra, LeBoy W. Loder.*

Pee Cukiam.

This is an automobile accident case. On the 6th of July, 1926, two of the plaintiffs, Rae Henderson and Jennie Stancil, were driving along the Millville Pike, near Bridgeton, in an automobile belonging to the former’s husband. As they reached the intersection of a highway known as Carmel road a truck belonging to the defendant company came out of this road and collided with the car in which these two women were riding. They brought suit against the company to recover compensation for the personal injuries that were received by them respectively in the collision. Their husbands were joined as plaintiffs. Stancil claimed compensation for the loss of services and companionship of his wife and for the medical expenses incurred by him in the treatment of her injuries. Henderson claimed like compensation, and also compensation for the damage to his car. The trial resulted in the rendition of a verdict in favor of Mrs. Henderson for $10,000; of a verdict in favor of Mrs. Stancil for $1,750; of a verdict in favor of Mr. Henderson for $1,500, and of a verdict of no cause of action as to Mr. Stancil.

The finding of the jury in favor of Mrs. Stancil and against her husband was in direct disregard of the charge of the court, which was that if they found the driver of the defendant’s truck solely responsible for the accident, they should return verdicts in favor of each one of the four plaintiffs. The only ground upon which the verdict against Stancil can be justified under the charge is that the jury found that the defendant’s driver was not guilty of negligence causing the accident. If that finding was justified, then the finding in favor of the other plaintiffs cannot be *456sustained. *Lanning*v. *Mercer County Traction Co.,*3 *N. J. Mis. R.*1006. In that case we stated that verdicts similar to those in the present case were absolutely irreconcilable and demonstrated the unfitness of the jury to determine the respective rights and obligations of the parties to that litigation. This statement, in our opinion, is applicable to the jury in the present case.

The rule to show cause will be made absolute.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2416 

To require the Department of Veterans Affairs to use purchases of goods 

or services through the Federal supply schedules for the purpose of 

meeting certain contracting goals for participation by small business 

concerns owned and controlled by veterans, including veterans with service-connected disabilities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2009 

Mr. ADLER of New Jersey (for himself and Mr. LANCE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To require the Department of Veterans Affairs to use purchases of goods or services through the Federal supply 

schedules for the purpose of meeting certain contracting 

goals for participation by small business concerns owned 

and controlled by veterans, including veterans with service-connected disabilities. 

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


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2416 IH

1 SECTION 1. USE OF FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULES BY DE2 PARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO MEET 

3 CONTRACTING GOALS FOR PARTICIPATION 

4 BY SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS OWNED AND 

5 CONTROLLED BY VETERANS. 

6 Section 8127 of title 38, United States Code, is 

7 amended— 

8 (1) by redesignating subsections (k) and (l) as 

9 subsections (l) and (m), respectively; and 

10 (2) by inserting after subsection (j) the fol11 lowing new subsection: 

12 ‘‘(k) FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULES.—Notwith13 standing any law or regulation relating to the Federal sup14 ply schedules of the General Services Administration, a 

15 contracting officer of the Department shall use purchases 

16 of goods or services through the Federal supply schedules 

17 for the purpose of meeting the goals under subsection 

18 (a).’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
# C_2012243EN.01000201.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/2

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Alakor Gabonatermelő és Forgalmazó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

(Case C-191/12)

2012/C 243/02

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alakor Gabonatermelő és Forgalmazó Kft.

Applicant:

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Can the fact that a taxpayer — where there is a prohibition on deduction — has obtained aid in such a manner that this also funds VAT or has obtained additional State aid as compensation for non-deductible VAT be categorised as the passing on of tax according to Community law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the fact that a taxpayer — where there is a prohibition on deduction — has obtained aid in such a manner that this also funds VAT or has obtained additional State aid as compensation for non-deductible VAT be categorised as the passing on of tax according to Community law?

| 2. | If the answer is in the affirmative, would the answer be the same if the taxpayer did not receive the aid from a Member State or from the tax authority of a Member State, but instead the aid was paid — pursuant to the contract concluded with the person granting the aid — from European Union aid and the Member State’s central budget? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer is in the affirmative, would the answer be the same if the taxpayer did not receive the aid from a Member State or from the tax authority of a Member State, but instead the aid was paid — pursuant to the contract concluded with the person granting the aid — from European Union aid and the Member State’s central budget?

| 3. | Can the principles of repayment based on fiscal neutrality and of effectiveness, equivalence and equal treatment be regarded as satisfied, and the prohibition on unjust enrichment complied with, where — owing to legislation on the right to deduct that is contrary to European Union law — the tax authority of a Member State only upholds the taxpayer’s claim for repayment or damages in relation to that part or proportion not previously funded through the aid referred to in the first two questions? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the principles of repayment based on fiscal neutrality and of effectiveness, equivalence and equal treatment be regarded as satisfied, and the prohibition on unjust enrichment complied with, where — owing to legislation on the right to deduct that is contrary to European Union law — the tax authority of a Member State only upholds the taxpayer’s claim for repayment or damages in relation to that part or proportion not previously funded through the aid referred to in the first two questions?

---
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal No. 07-11]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 604-6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 07-11 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: April 24, 2007.

L.M. Bynum,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 21233)          ( print page 21234)          ( print page 21235)          ( print page 21236)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. 07-2095 Filed 4-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersignedofficer of Universal Access Global Holdings Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:    August 14, 2003 |   | /S/ Randall R. Lay                            |
|------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                                     |   | Name: Randall R. Lay                          |
|                                     |   | Title: President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 

 

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 153

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, 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 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 153.250 Double-bottom and deep tanks as cargo tanks.

Except in those cases in which Commandant (CG-ENG) specifically approves another arrangement, such as a double-bottom or deep tank as a cargo tank, an integral cargo tank or the hold within which an independent cargo tank is located must extend to the weatherdeck.

[CGD 73-96, 42 FR 49027, Sept. 26, 1977, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4781, Feb. 3, 1983]
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q/A of DOVER SADDLERY, INC. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers certifies,
to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                |  |  |  |                              
|----------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|/s/ Stephen L. Day                              |  |  |  | /s/ David R. Pearce          
|                                                |  | 
|Stephen L. Day                                  |  |  |  | David R. Pearce              
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Executive Officer)                   |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
|                                                |  | 
|Date: June 5, 2013                              |  |  |  | Date: June 5, 2013
# C_2011269EN.01003403.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/34

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — SICAV KBC Select Immo v Ministre du budget, des comptes publiques, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

(Case C-342/11)

2011/C 269/68

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SICAV KBC Select Immo

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministre du budget, des comptes publiques, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the situation of the shareholders be taken into account together with that of undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the situation of the shareholders be taken into account together with that of undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)?

| 2. | If so, what are the conditions under which the withholding tax at issue may be regarded as consistent with the principle of free movement of capital? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, what are the conditions under which the withholding tax at issue may be regarded as consistent with the principle of free movement of capital?

---
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: F AA - 2013 - 1031 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM155AD
AOT 24L001 - 13 --- 7/25/13

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 25, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 20514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2041]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Subcommittee Site Visit of the President's Commission on Care for 
America's Returning Wounded Warriors

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a), Public Law 92-462, as amended, 
notice is hereby given of a forthcoming subcommittee site visit of the 
President's Commission on America's Returning Wounded Warriors. The 
purpose of the subcommittee site visit is to gather information.

DATES: Tuesday, 8 May 2007.
    Location: Richmond, Virginia, McGuire Veterans Affairs Medical 
Center, 1201 Broad Rock Blvd, Phone 804-675-5000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Col. Denise Daily, 703-588-0439.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.

    Note: Exact order and topics may vary.


    Dated: April 19, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.
[FR Doc. 07-2041 Filed 4-24-07; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.028-6 Examinations, tests, and inspections. ( a ) Full examinations, tests, and inspections to determine the suitability of a product for listing and labeling, and to determine conformance of labeled product to the applicable requirements are conducted by the recognized laboratory. Whenever any work is being done on components or the assembly of such product, the manufacturer shall notify the recognized laboratory in order that an inspector may be assigned to the factory to conduct such examinations, inspections, and tests as to satisfy himself that the quality assurance program of the manufacturer is satisfactory, and that the labeled product is in conformance with the applicable requirements.
( b ) Manufacturers of listed or labeled marine type portable fire extinguishers shall maintain quality control of the materials used, manufacturing methods, and the finished product so as to meet the applicable requirements, and shall make sufficient inspections and tests of representative samples of the extinguishers and various components produced to maintain the quality of the finished product. Records of tests conducted by the manufacturer shall be made available to the laboratory inspector or to the merchant marine inspector, or both, for review upon request.
( c ) Follow-up check tests, examinations, and inspections of product listed and labeled as a “marine type” portable fire extinguisher acceptable to the Commandant as approved for use on merchant vessels and motorboats may be conducted by the Coast Guard, as well as by the recognized laboratory.
( d ) The laboratory inspector, or the Coast Guard marine inspector assigned by the Commander of the District in which the factory is located, or both, shall be admitted to any place in the factory where work is being done on listed or labeled product, and either or both inspectors may take samples of parts or materials entering into construction, or final assemblies, for further examinations, inspections or tests. The manufacturer shall provide a suitable place and the apparatus necessary for the performance of the tests which are done at the place of manufacture.
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31-6, PageID.185 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 12
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31-6, PageID.186 Filed 12/12/16 Page 2 of 12
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31-6, PageID.187 Filed 12/12/16 Page 3 of 12
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31-6, PageID.188 Filed 12/12/16 Page 4 of 12
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31-6, PageID.189 Filed 12/12/16 Page 5 of 12
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31-6, PageID.190 Filed 12/12/16 Page 6 of 12
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31-6, PageID.191 Filed 12/12/16 Page 7 of 12
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31-6, PageID.192 Filed 12/12/16 Page 8 of 12
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31-6, PageID.193 Filed 12/12/16 Page 9 of 12
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31-6, PageID.194 Filed 12/12/16 Page 10 of 12
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31-6, PageID.195 Filed 12/12/16 Page 11 of 12
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31-6, PageID.196 Filed 12/12/16 Page 12 of 12
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

APR 25 m

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

Dr. David C. Moody, Manager

Carlsbad Field Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box 3090

Carlsbad, NM 88221

Dear Dr. Moody:

This letter transmits the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 40 CFR 194.8

Guidance Document (EP A Docket No. A-98-49, II-A4-62). The guidance describes the

process that EP A uses to conduct waste characterization (WC) program inspections at the

U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) transuranic (TRU) waste sites to establish baseline

compliance decisions for disposal ofTRU waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

(WIPP).

The objective of this document is to ~nsure that responsible individuals understand

EP A's process for the baseline inspections and compliance decisions, based on the

requirements of 40 CFR 194.8. EP A believes that this guidance will assist the Carlsbad

Field Office (CBFO) and TRU waste generator sites in preparing for EP A inspections

and approvals. The CBFO staff has agreed to share an electronic copy of this guidance

with the TRU waste generator sites.

Please contact Rajani Joglekar (202-343-9462) or Ed Feltcom (202-343-9462) if you

have any questions.

1 /

I

4 J~' /'v

Bonnie Gitlin, Acting Director

Radiation Protection Division

Enclosure

cc (Electronic Distribution):

A. Holland, CBFO

K. Watson, CBFO

R. McCallister, CBFO

IntemetAddress(URL) 8 http:/~.epa.goy

RecycledlRecyclable 8 Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% PostconSUrTlef, Process ChIome Free Recycled Paper
!

 "#$% & '(   &&!

))	*+ ,-!. /0""1   ( 

! -  222%3456%789:7;<8%=:> ( '!'

?@#A"/AB# &

& C@#A"/A ?







 7=78<,"B"#



 DD8<E<5!:;F:;E<4:G

"HHEG65;8:E6

:;<IJ;::K,DD4G:481BB1"



G5@LMNOPQRSTTUVWVXYXZ[\TXW]O^MN_XMVP`]UaMW]\XbNc_W]P

!E85:%#A9>A##1/

5E; DD8<E<5!:;F:;E<4:G,



IE>5J55G9:G<E9<56Jde76=5;E4G2I:F;584656:>5;<I5EJ:>5;5f5;5G9569E85%



e76=5;E4G4Gf:;35635<IE<4<IE8J55GJ;:7=I<<:I48E<<5G<4:G<IE<2I4D5I5F;584656

:>5;<I59E85,I5:2G568<:9K4G DD8<E<5!:;F%48:2G5;8I4F:f8<:9KG54<I5;Eff59<56G:;

43FE9<56I48659484:G8:G<I59E85%:25>5;,IE6I5KG:2G:fI48:2G5;8I4F:f8<:9K4G<I5

9:;F:;E<4:GE<<I5<435,4<2:7D6IE>5;5g74;56;5978ED7G65;<I5!:65:f!:G679<f:;<I5G4<56

<E<58e76=58,EG6<I78,e76=5;E4G64;59<56<IE<G:<4fd<I5FE;<458:f<I548875%



 6>48:;dF4G4:GH#,f;:3<I5e76494ED!:Gf5;5G95!:658:f!:G679<!:334<<55,

F;:>4658<I5f:DD:24G==746EG95f:;E66;5884G=648g7ED4f49E<4:G<IE<48G:<6489:>5;567G<4DEf<5;

Eh76=5IE8FE;<494FE<564GE9E85@



i jh76=58I:7D66489D:85<:<I5FE;<458<I5fE9<8J5E;4G=:G648g7ED4f49E<4:GE8

8::GE8<I:85fE9<8E;5D5E;G565>5G<I:7=I<IE<3Ed:997;Ef<5;5G<;d:fE

659484:G%I5FE;<4583Ed<I5G65<5;34G52IE<;5D45f<I5d3Ed855KEG6E9:7;<

k24<I:7<<I5648g7ED4f456h76=5l24DD659465<I5D5=ED9:G85g75G95,4fEGd,E;484G=

f;:3<I5FE;<494FE<4:G:f<I5648g7ED4f456h76=54G<I55G<5;56659484:G%



 D<I:7=I 6>48:;dF4G4:GH#9:G<53FDE<58648g7ED4f49E<4:GEf<5;E!:7;<:f FF5ED8

:;EDE;=735G<,<I5!:334<<555mFDE4G56ni8j434DE;9:G8465;E<4:G2:7D6EFFDd2I5GEh76=35G<

2E85G<5;564GE648<;49<9:7;<JdEh76=5EG64<48DE<5;D5E;G56<IE<<I5h76=52E8648g7ED4f456%o

Case 2:15-cv-11964-GAD-SDD ECF No. 43, PageID.709 Filed 08/05/21 Page 1 of 2
	





	
 

	 !"##$
#%# #	"#&'#(		)	

*#*)#	+) ,		"#")		# 	"#	#,#%

		)	-#-*	
# 	"#	,))-#	- 

#.*	,""#*&'#

+#) 

/#0'1		2

%#	

Case 2:15-cv-11964-GAD-SDD ECF No. 43, PageID.710 Filed 08/05/21 Page 2 of 2
#### J. Dupha Reeves, Trustee, and others, *Appellants, v.*Edwin K. Burnham and others, *Respondents.*

Judgment appealed from reversed, and judgment ordered in favor of the plaintiffs adjudging the trust valid and directing an injunction as prayed for in the complaint, with costs. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.
§ 31.05-10 Period of validity for a Certificate of Inspection—TB/ALL. ( a ) A Certificate of Inspection is valid for 5 years.
( b ) Application may be made by the master, owner, or agent for inspection and issuance of a new certificate of inspection at any time during the period of validity of the current certificate.
( c ) Certificates of inspection may be revoked or suspended by the Coast Guard where such process is authorized by law. This may occur if the vessel does not meet the requirements of law or regulations in this chapter or if there is a failure to maintain the safety requirements requisite to the issuance of a certificate of inspection.
[CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18804, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by CGD 95-012, 60 FR 48049, Sept. 18, 1995; USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6499, Feb. 9, 2000]