alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sylph Mining & Milling Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Williams, Defendant in Error.

1. Service of Summons bt Publication, Affidavit for.

An affidavit for publication of summons made by the plaintiff’s attorney on information and belief is defective and insufficient. Without some showing of right, authority and capacity, an attorney cannot make an affidavit which will be sufficient to uphold an order for such substituted service.

2. Constructive Service — Premature Judgment.

When the service of summons was by publication, a judgment entered forty-one days after the last publication is premature.

*Mrror to the County Court of Magle County.*

Mr. H. B. Johnson and Mr. J. S. McBeth, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. A. B. Hohgh and Messrs. Riddell, Stabkweatheb, & Dixon, for defendant in error.

Bissell, P. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Nine errors are assigned on this appeal, and, apparently, most of them are well laid. The matter can be determined, however, by the application of two rules which have been declared by the appellate courts of this state.

In 1890, Williams commenced suit against the mining company to recover the value of the services which he had rendered as foreman or superintendent, and also certain wages due miners. According to the record, the corporation *346was organized under the laws of Missouri, and all of its officers and directors were nonresidents. An attachment was issued in aid of the suit, and levied on the property. To bring the corporation into court, Williams, who was its only representative in Colorado, attempted to make a substituted service by publication.- The affidavit on which the order of publication was based was made by his attorney on information and belief. The order was made, publication commenced, and finished on the 13th of August, 1891, and judgment was entered on the 23d of September following. This is all that need be stated to show that the judgment must be reversed.

It is well settled that the affidavit for publication may not be made by the attorney on information and belief; and without some showing, at least, of right, authority, and capacity, an attorney cannot make an affidavit which will he sufficient to uphold an order for the substituted service.

The time which must elapse between the completion of the publication and the rendition of judgment is equally determinative. Under the law as declared, this judgment was prematurely entered, and cannot stand. *Morton v.*Morton, 16 Colo. 358; *Davis v. Lumber Co.,*2 Colo. App. 381. These errors dispose of the judgment, and it will be reversed and remanded.

*Reversed.*
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49223, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013.

§ 2.01-10 Inspection requirements—domestic vessels. ( a ) If during the inspection of a vessel made at the request of the master, owner, or agent, the vessel or her equipment is found not to conform to the requirements of law or regulations in this chapter, the requirements which must be met will be listed on Form CG-835, Notice of Merchant Marine Inspection Requirements, and given to the master of the vessel.
( b ) The Coast Guard, on its own initiative, may examine or inspect or reinspect at any time any vessel subject to inspection under subtitle II, title 46 of the U.S. Code, title 46 and title 33 U.S. Code. If during such examination, inspection, or reinspection, any failure to comply with any applicable requirement of law and/or applicable regulations in this chapter, or any defects or imperfections become apparent tending to render the navigation of the vessel unsafe, or that repairs have become necessary, the Coast Guard will so notify the master and state what is required.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16604, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51194, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2004-18884, 69 FR 58341, Sept. 30, 2004]
#### Charles P. McVean, *Appellant, v.*William Ohley, *Respon*dent.

Nonsuit set aside, new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Learned, P. J.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6312

LANCE ALBERT SNYDER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; G. L. WOODARD, Superintendent, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-273-2) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 6, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lance Albert Snyder, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) petition. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant lodged only general objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have beenwarned that failure to lodge specific objections will waive appellate review. Howard v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs. , 932 F.2d 505, 507-09 (6th Cir. 1991); Lockert v. Faulkner , 843 F.2d 1015, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988). See generally Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-3 quately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 79 ) IV-C-4

5 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:55AM Sheet 79of 232P. 2

jttf.sn,. v T _**. I t-S* * 1 UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO NAGENC Y %\fp^

- /

WASHINGTON, D.C . 2046 0 %«*o ^ '/ 

### OA N 

### O S W S

OFFIC E O F AI RAN D RADIATIO N Honorabl e Pau l S . Sarbane s Unite d State s Senat e Washington , D.C . 2051 0 Dea r Senato r Sarbanes : Thi s i s i n respons e t o you r January7 , 198 8 lette r relaying th e concern s o f severa l o f you r constituent s regarding EPA' s regulatoryproposa l t o requir e onboar d canister s o n ne wvehicle s t o contro l refueling emissions . T o assis t yo u wit hyou r response , I hav e enclose d a copyo f ou r proposa l fo r you r review . Sectio n E (page s 31177-31182 ) explain s EPA' s overal l rational e fo r proposin g onboar d controls . I f yo u woul d lik e furthe r detail s o f ou r analysis , pleas e contac t Mr . Phili p Carlso n o f th e Standard s Developmen t an

d Suppor t Branc ho f th e Emissio n Contro l TechnologyDivision , 256 5 Plymout hRoad , AnnArbor , Michiga n 4810 5 (FTS 374-827 0 o r Commercia l (313 ) 668-4270) . Thank yo u fo r you r letter . W e wil l plac e th e letter s fro myou r constituent s i nou r publi c docke t an d full y conside r thei r comment s i nth e nex t phas e o f ou r rulemaking process . Sincerel yyours , Richar d D . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s Enclosur e cc : Docke t A-87-1 1
Opinion issued December 3 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01
- 13
- 00710
- CV

——————————— IN THE INTEREST OF J .J.J., S.D.J. , AND N.R.J , Children

On Appeal from the 314th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2012
- 03856J

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, S.J. , has filed an agreed motion to dismiss the appeal. No opinion has issued. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.
**EXHIBIT 32****Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer****Certification of Periodic Financial Report**Carl B. Webb and Mike L. Wilhelms hereby certify as follows:     1. They are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of TriadFinancial Corporation.     2. The Form 10-Q of Triad Financial Corporation for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2006 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and the information contained in the report on Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofTriad Financial Corporation.        Dated: November 13, 2006 /s/ CARL B. WEBB   **Carl B. Webb,**   **President & Chief Executive Officer**      Dated: November 13, 2006 /s/ MIKE L. WILHELMS   **Mike L. Wilhelms**   **Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer**
#### § 188.10-37 Label.

This term means the label required by 49 CFR part 172 to be affixed to containers of explosives or other hazardous materials.

[CGD 86-033, 53 FR 36026, Sept. 16, 1988]
#### § 201.54 Reduction of time to file documents.

Except as prohibited by law, for good cause the Administration, or the Presiding Officer with respect to matters pending before him, may reduce any time limit prescribed in the regulations in this part.
Argued and submitted October 26,

reversed and remanded for reconsideration November 29, 1995

#### MICHAEL JAY HOLTON, *Petitioner, v.*BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, *Respondent.*

(CA A83760)

906 P2d 309

John E. Storkel argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner.

Robert K. Lau, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Hasel-ton, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration. *Fernandez v. Board of Parole,*137 Or App 247, 904 P2d 1071 (1995).
§ 249.4 Eligibility. *In General.* All required marine hull insurance must be placed with: ( a ) Underwriters licensed to do business in one or more of the United States;
( b ) Underwriters at Lloyds;
( c ) Member companies of the Institute of London Underwriters; or
( d ) Other underwriters specifically approved in advance by the Maritime Administration.
EXHIBIT 99.4
   2008
    
    
    % of Total
    
    
    2007
    
    
    % of Total(Cdn $)
    
    
    Fees
    
    
    (Cdn $)
    
    
    FeesAudit Fees:Cameco
    
    $
    1,062,500
    
    
    
    34.1
    %
    
    $
    890,000
    
    
    
    44.9
    %Centerra and other subsidiaries
    
    
    1,197,276
    
    
    
    38.5
    %
    
    
    661,400
    
    
    
    33.4
    %Total Audit Fees
    
    $
    2,259,776
    
    
    
    72.6
    %
    
    $
    1,551,400
    
    
    
    78.3
    %Audit-Related Fees:Sarbanes-Oxley 404 scoping project
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    41,500
    
    
    
    2.1
    %Translation services
    
    $
    170,000
    
    
    
    5.5
    %
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Cameco consulting
    
    
    98,200
    
    
    
    3.1
    %
    
    
    31,500
    
    
    
    1.5
    %Centerra consulting
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    153,900
    
    
    
    7.8
    %Pensions
    
    
    15,000
    
    
    
    0.5
    %
    
    
    13,000
    
    
    
    0.7
    %Potential financing & convertible
debentures
    
    
    326,260
    
    
    
    10.5
    %
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Total Audit-Related Fees
    
    $
    609,460
    
    
    
    19.6
    %
    
    $
    239,900
    
    
    
    12.1
    %Tax Fees:Compliance
    
    $
    121,500
    
    
    
    3.9
    %
    
    $
    130,400
    
    
    
    6.6
    %Planning and advice
    
    
    122,300
    
    
    
    3.9
    %
    
    
    58,800
    
    
    
    3.0
    %Total Tax Fees
    
    $
    243,800
    
    
    
    7.8
    %
    
    $
    189,200
    
    
    
    9.6
    %All Other Fees:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Total Fees
    
    $
    3,113,036
    
    
    
    100
    %
    
    $
    1,980,500
    
    
    
    100
    %
 Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2422 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2422

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 16, 2009

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2300 Scenic Drive in Georgetown, Texas, as the ``Kile G. West Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. KILE G. WEST POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2300 Scenic Drive in Georgetown, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``KileG. West 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 ``Kile G. 
West Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 15, 2009.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# CE2009041EN.01008901.xml

| 19.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 41/89 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 41/89

---

P6_TA(2008)0001

European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 January 2008 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 533/2004 on the establishment of partnerships in the framework of the stabilisation and association process (COM(2007)0662 — C6-0471/2007 — 2007/0239(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2007)0662), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2007)0662),

| — | having regard to the first sentence of Article 181a(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0471/2007), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the first sentence of Article 181a(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0471/2007),

| — | having regard to Rules 51 and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 51 and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A6-0517/2007), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A6-0517/2007),

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

1.

Approves the Commission proposal;

| 2. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

| 3. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

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

---
1

Charles Baker

From: Mike Murphy <mikerhm@acegroup.cc>

Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:53 PM

To: Charles Baker

Subject: Lisota

Attachments: Customer List 2014.pdf

Charles,

                I am e‐mailing to provide you with the list of customers and/or potential customers which Mr. Lisota will be

calling upon.  Mr. Lisota will also agree to continue to sell products and services in his traditional geographic area and

not knowingly pursue PCT customers located throughout the US and Canada.  Mr. Lisota is the sole owner of BSES.   

                Please advise.

Mike

Michael A. Murphy

Hammell & Murphy, P.L.L.P.

110 E Main Street

P.O. Box 149

Caledonia, MN 55921

Office: 507‐725‐3361

Cell: 507‐429‐9866

Fax: 507‐725‐5627

From: Charles Baker [mailto:cbaker@trowbridgehouse.com] 

Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:17 PM 

To: Mike Murphy 

Subject: RE: Lisota 

Mike:

As a follow up to my email. My client wants to negotiate this to a resolution but he feels that he is negotiating against

himself. With that in mind, we would request a list from your client indicating who he wants to continue to call upon.

This is particularly necessary in the event we have to continue this discussion into next week. Please let me know your

thoughts. Also, kindly confirm who else is a member of BSES so that we are aware as to whom we need to be speaking.

Thanks.

Charles Baker

Charles E. Baker

Trowbridge Law Firm, P.C.

1380 East Jefferson Ave.

Detroit, MI 48207

voice: 313‐259‐6900 ext. 121

fax   : 313‐259‐3474

email: cbaker@trowbridgehouse.com

  

CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE In accordance with U.S. Treasury regulations, if this message from Trowbridge Law Firm, P.C. (or any attachment) contains advice concerning one or

more Federal tax issues, it is not a formal legal opinion and may not be used by any person for the avoidance of Federal tax penalties.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The contents of this message from Trowbridge Law Firm, P.C. may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in

2:15-cv-10657-MFL-MKM Doc # 1-3 Filed 02/20/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 24
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.003-3 Material and workmanship. ( a ) The raw kapok fiber shall be long, clean, creamy white in color, lustrous, free from discoloration and adulteration with other fiber, and of a quality equal to that grown in Java.
( b ) Kapok shall be processed by teasing in a machine using the air-blow method. Mechanical separation of fiber masses is permitted, but machines using violent beating which breaks down the fibers or causes undue powdering or pulverizing are not permitted. Provision shall be made for trapping seeds and heavy objects in gravity traps and the dust or powder in an efficient dust collector.
( c ) Processed kapok shall have a buoyancy in fresh water of at least 48 pounds per cubic foot when tested in accordance with § 164.003-4(d). Rejected kapok shall not be used in lifesaving products inspected by the Coast Guard.
( d ) The processed kapok shall contain not more than 5 percent by weight of sticks, seeds, dirt or other foreign material and shall be free from objectionable odor and adulteration with other fibers.
[11 FR 188, Jan. 3, 1946, as amended by USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58286, Sept. 29, 2014]
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00223

- CV

Raul Cantu Jr. v. Cynthia Perez

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 of Hidalgo County , Texas

Trial Cause No. F

- 1706

- 17

- 7

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. June 7, 2018
§ 189.35-13 Master's responsibility. ( a ) The master of the vessel shall ensure the following: ( 1 ) The gear is properly installed and secure.
( 2 ) Suitable safety guards are installed in way of rotating machinery, hazardous cable runs and at other appropriate locations.
( 3 ) Operating limitations are posted in an appropriate manner.
( 4 ) Only qualified operators are permitted to operate the weight handling gear. The master shall designate the operators.
( 5 ) A minimum number of persons are allowed in the immediate area.
( 6 ) The installation does not violate the approved trim and stability information.
( 7 ) A suitable permanent record is maintained on the equipment as appropriate showing such items as inspections, tests, important repairs and casualties experienced. This record shall be made available to the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, upon request.
( b ) Prior to a vessel's departure, an entry shall also be made in the official logbook that the ship's weight handling gear is in compliance with the applicable requirements in this subchapter.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 12
Federal Reserve Bank of: San Francisco

## Filings received during the week ending June 24, 2006

|Filer                    | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                          | End of Comment Period                          
|------------------------ | ----------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|ORANGE COMMUNITY BANCORP | * 3A1       | Orange Community Bancorp to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Orange Community Bank, both of Orange, California. | Newspaper:07/11/2006Federal Register:06/30/2006
|Newspaper:               | 07/11/2006 
|Federal Register:        | 06/30/2006 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us