alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1.91 Delegations to the Federal Transit Administrator. The Federal Transit Administrator is delegated authority to carry out the following: ( a ) Chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, and notes thereto.
( b ) Sections 3 and 9 through 15 of the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-143, 83 Stat. 320), as amended (DC Code, section 9-1101.01 *et seq.*).
( c ) Sections of title 23, United States Code, and notes thereto that involve public transportation projects, including those provisions that pertain to planning, environmental reviews and use of historic resources for public transportation projects.
( d ) Section 303 of title 49, United States Code, as it involves public transportation projects.
( e ) The following sections of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405): ( 1 ) Sections 1315 [23 U.S.C. 109 note], 1316 [23 U.S.C. 109 note], 1317 [23 U.S.C. 109 note], 1318 [23 U.S.C. 109 note], and 1321, as they relate to public transit projects; and
( 2 ) Sections 20005(b) [49 U.S.C. 5303 note], 20008(b) [49 U.S.C. 5309 note], 20013(b) [49 U.S.C. 5315 note], 20017(b) [49 U.S.C. 5324 note], 20021(b), and 20025(b) [49 U.S.C. 5335 note].
( f ) Section 601 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-432, Div. B).
98-2552.

#### Galloway v. Money.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
#### Ferrin *v.*Errol *& a.*

*A*resulting trust in lands is valid against all subsequent purchasers or incumbrancers, with notice actual or constructive.

Possession and occupation of land is constructive notice that such possession is under a claim of title, legal or equitable.

Equity will restrain the issue or enforcement of a writ of possession against a person in whose favor there is a resulting trust in the lands described in the writ.

Bill in Equity, for a conveyance from the defendants of certain lands, and an injunction to restrain Errol from taking out :a writ of possession on a judgment against the plaintiff. Facts found by the court.

In 1863 Bragg, one of the defendants, bought the land for the plaintiff, who paid $100 of the purchase-money, and the balance was paid by Bragg, as a loan to the plaintiff, secured by the deed ■of the premises, with the understanding that when the plaintiff paid it Bragg was to convey to him. The plaintiff has since paid it.

July 30, 1868, the premises were attached in a suit of Errol against Bragg. Judgment was recovered against him, and an execution was issued, which was levied upon the premises in dispute. Errol then brought a writ of entry against the plaintiff, and recovered judgment. The plaintiff has been in possession of the premises, occupying them under a claim of title, since the purchase by Bragg in 1863.

The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree, and the defendants excepted.

*May, Drew Jordan,*for the defendants.

*Ladd*and *Dudley,*for the plaintiff.

Stanley, J.

Upon the facts found by the court, there was a resulting trust in favor of the plaintiff when the purchase was made by Bragg. *Scoby*v. *Blanchard,*3 N. H. 170; *Pritchard*v. *Brown,*4 N. H. 397; *Page*v. *Page, 8*N. H. 187; *Gove*v. *Law**235rence, 26 N. H. 484; *McDonough*v. *O’Niel,*113 Mass. 92; *Kendall*v. Mann, 11 Allen 15; *Blodgett*v. *Hildreth,*103 Mass. 484; Bigelow on Fraud 108, 109, 110; Story Eq. Jur., *s.*1201; Perry on Trusts, 1st ed., *c.*5. And this trust will follow the estate in the hands of all, with notice actual or constructive. Bigelow on Fraud 113; Perry on Trusts, *ss. 217, 828; 2*Lead. Cas. in Eq., H. & *W.,*notes 136, 182.

The defendants do not stand in the position of parties without notice; for the possession and occupation by the plaintiff was constructive notice that he was in under a title, either legal or equitable. *Patten*v. *Moore,*32 N. H. 382; *Doe*v. *Doe,*37 N. H. 268, 282; 2 Lead. Cas. in Eq., H. & W., notes 164, 165; Perry on Trusts, *s.*223. Nor will the fact that Errol has obtained judgment against the plaintiff, in the writ of entry, deprive him of relief. Story Eq. Jur., *s.*874; Kerr on Inj. 23. The defendants invoke in their aid the maxim that “ where the equities are equal the law must prevail; ” but that maxim does not apply here. The equities are not equal. The defendants are here, claiming through Bragg, with constructive notice of his title. As against the plaintiff he lias no title, and the defendants stands no better than he does.

*Hxception sustained.*

Doe, C. J., did not sit: the others concurred.
§ 71.01-10 Period of validity. ( a ) Certificates of inspection will be issued for a period of 1 year. Application may be made by the master, owner, or agent for inspection and issuance of a new certificate of inspection at any time within the period of validity of the current certificate.
( b ) 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 18899, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by CGD 95-012, 60 FR 48051, Sept. 18, 1995; CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51203, Sept. 30, 1997]
#### George F. Victor and others, *Respondents, v.*John Cunningham, *Appellant.*James McCreary and others, *Respondents, v.*John Cunningham, *Appellant.*Samuel P. Hyman, *Respondent, v.*John Cunningham, *Appellant.*

Orders affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements in one case. '
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CORNELIUS PEARSON, ISIAH WILLIAMS,

and ANTWAUN ANDERSON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

C& J GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC.,

KENNETH JORDAN, and SAMUEL WORTHY,

Defendants.

/

Case No. 15-12467

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

ORDER OF PARTIAL REMAND

This matter came before the court on Defendants’ notice of removal based on federal question

jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges the following causes of action: Count I, violation of 29

U.S.C. § 201, regarding minimum wage; Count II, violation of 29 U.S.C. § 201, regarding overtime;

Count III, violation of Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 408.411, regarding minimum wage; Count IV,

common law breach of contract; and Count V, common law unjust enrichment/quantum meruit.

Although Counts I and II are cognizable in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the

allegations presented in the remaining counts are based on state law. The parties to this action are

not diverse. Therefore, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state

law claims to avoid jury confusion. Moreover, the state claims predominate. See 28 U.S.C. §

1367(c); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 282 U.S. 715 (1966); Padilla v. City of Saginaw, 867 F.

Supp. 1309 (E.D. Mich. 1994).

5:15-cv-12467-JCO-EAS Doc # 8 Filed 08/07/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 32
ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that Counts III, IV and V are REMANDED to the Circuit Court for

the County of Wayne.

s/John Corbett O'Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: August 7, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

this date, August 7, 2015, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

2

5:15-cv-12467-JCO-EAS Doc # 8 Filed 08/07/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 33
THIEATSOEWEY~GENFXAL 

OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN. TEXAS 78711 

April 13, 1966 

Honorable Jules Damiani, Jr. Opinion No. c-657 

Criminal DistrictAttorney 

Galveston County Re: 

Galveston, Texas 

Payment of inveetigation 

and expert testimony exDear Mr. Damlani: 

penses incurred for an examining trial. 

In a recent opinion request of this office you pose 

the following question: 

Does Article 26.05 (c), Vernon's Code 

of Criminal Procedure of Texas, 1966, 

apply so as to provide payment for 

expenses incurred for the purposes of 

investigation and expert testimony by 

an appointed counsel In fan examining 

trial. 

Article 26.05, v.c.c.P., 1966, provides, in pertinent 

part, as follows: 

"Section 1. A counsel appointed to 

defend a person accused of a felony 

or a misdemeanor punishable by lmprisonment shall be paid from the 

general fund of the county In which 

the prosecution was instituted according to the following schedule: 

(c) For expenses Incurred for,purposes of investigation and expert 

tcstyony, not more than $250.00; 

. . . 

Article 16.01, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1966, provides, among other things, that a magistrate has the authority 

to appoint counsel to represent an accused in an examining 

trial. In Attorney General's Opinion No. C-654, dated April 

12, 1966, this office held that an attorneys appointed to 

represent an accused in an examining trial was entitled 

to be compensated for his work In accordance with Article 

26.05. It is our opinion, therefore, that Article 26.05, 

(c) is applicable to examining trials and counsel who incur 

-3177- 
Honorable Jules Damiani, Jr., page 2 (C- 657) 

expenses for investigation and expert testimony in an examining trial are entitled to be reimbursed in accordance 

with the provisions of Article 26.05. 

------- SUMMARY 

Article 26.05 (c), Code of Criminal Procedure, 

1966, applies to examining trials, and counsel 

who incur expenses for investigation and expert testimony are entitled to be reimbursed 

therefor in accordance with said Article. 

Yours very truly, 

WAGGONFR CARR 

Attorney General of Texas 

BY 

I( 11 

A%s~an~YAttorney Ge era1 

SK/lb 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Robert E. Owen 

Howard Fender 

Douglas Chilton 

Thomas Mack 

APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: T. B. Wright 

. 

-31 m-
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, April 4, 1995 (55), Para 55.6 Communications]
[Pages 528-529]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.55.6  communications

  Executive and other communications, pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIV, 
were referred as follows:

       682. A letter from the Comptroller General of the United 
     States, the General Accounting Office, transmitting a review 
     of the President's third special impoundment message for 
     fiscal year 1995, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 685 (H. Doc. No. 104-
     58); to the Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be 
     printed.
       683. A letter from the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
     transmitting a copy of a report to the Congress entitled, 
     ``1995 Force Readiness Assessment''; to the Committee on 
     National Security.
       684. A letter from the Directors of Congressional Budget 
     Office and Office of Management and Budget, transmitting a 
     joint report on the technical assumptions to be used in 
     preparing estimates of national defense function (050)--
     outlays for fiscal year 1996, pursuant to Public Law 101-189, 
     section 5(a) (103 Stat. 1364); to the Committee on National 
     Security.
       685. A letter from the Employee Benefits Manager, Farm 
     Credit Bank of Columbia, transmitting information on the 
     retirement and thrift plans of the Farm Credit Bank of 
     Columbia and the audited financial statement as of August 31, 
     1994, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9503(a)(1)(B); to the Committee 
     on Government Reform and Oversight.
       686. A letter from Director, Institute of Museum Services, 
     transmitting the annual report under the Federal Managers' 
     Financial Integrity Act for fiscal year 1994, pursuant to 31 
     U.S.C. 3512(c)(3); to the Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight.
       687. A letter from the Administrator, General Services 
     Administration, transmitting an informational copy of a 
     construction prospectus for the U.S. Secret Service 
     administration building, Beltsville, MD, pursuant to 40 
     U.S.C. 606(a); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       688. A letter from the Secretary of Transportation, 
     transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to provide for 
     the certification by

[[Page 529]]

     the Federal Aviation Administration of airports serving 
     commuter air carriers, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
```
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Michael W. Bruns, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of DOVER SADDLERY, INC.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; and  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 13, 2007 /s/ Michael W. Bruns   Michael W. BrunsChief Financial Officer*(Principal Financial Officer)*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,912                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        16,278                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (69,190)                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,746                   1,746
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,746)                 (1,746)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,746)                 (1,746)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.00)                  (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.00)                  (0.00)



</TABLE>
98-2077.

#### State v. Wooden.

Summit App. No. 15548. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES LOSSIA, JR. and

ALEXANDRA PLAPCIANU,

individually and on behalf of

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 15-12540

vs.

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

FLAGSTAR BANCORP, INC.,

a/k/a FLAGSTAR BANK,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE TWO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 41]

Plaintiffs James Lossia Jr. and Alexandra Plapcianu filed this putative class

action lawsuit against Flagstar Bank alleging breach of contract and violations under the

Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. Discovery has been bifurcated

between plaintiff-specific and class-wide claims unless and until a class certification

motion is granted. Defendant moves for leave to file a motion for summary judgment

based on the evidence in the record as to the individual plaintiffs’ claims while reserving

the right to file an additional motion for summary judgment based on class-wide

evidence in the event the individual motion is denied and plaintiffs’ proposed class is

certified. Plaintiffs filed objections to defendant’s requested relief.

Under Local Rule 7.1(b)(2), parties “must obtain leave of court to file more than

one motion for summary judgment.” The court finds that defendant’s request for leave

to file one Rule 56 motion in connection with plaintiffs’ individual claims and one

-1-

2:15-cv-12540-GCS-DRG Doc # 47 Filed 08/05/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1718
additional motion in the event that class certification is granted, promotes the underlying

goals of efficiency and economical use of judicial resources underlying class action

litigation. Defendant’s motion for leave is therefore GRANTED.

Dated: August 5, 2016

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

August 5, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

-2-

2:15-cv-12540-GCS-DRG Doc # 47 Filed 08/05/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1719
#### § 1.26 General Counsel.

The General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the Department, legal advisor to the Secretary, and final authority within the Department on questions of law. The Office of the General Counsel provides legal advice to the Secretary and secretarial offices, and supervision, coordination, and review of the legal work of the Chief Counsel Offices in the Department. The General Counsel participates with each Operating Administrator in the performance reviews of Chief Counsel. The General Counsel is responsible for retention of outside counsel, and for the approval of the hiring and promotion of departmental attorneys (other than in the Federal Aviation Administration). The General Counsel is also responsible for departmental regulation under statutes including the Air Carrier Access Act, statutes prohibiting unfair and deceptive practices in air transportation, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, and the Uniform Time Act. The General Counsel coordinates all international legal matters, and departmental participation in proceedings before other federal and state agencies. The General Counsel provides oversight of departmental litigation, regulation, legislation, Freedom of Information Act compliance, and administrative enforcement.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1786 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1786

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

            To regulate fishing in certain waters of Alaska.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1786

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
            To regulate fishing in certain waters of Alaska.

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

SECTION 1. DESCENDANTS' LAND USE.

    (a) In General.--Local residents who are descendants of Katmai 
residents who lived in the Naknek Lake and River Drainage shall be 
permitted, subject to reasonable regulations established by the 
Secretary of the Interior, to continue their traditional fishery for 
red fish within Katmai National Park (the national park and national 
preserve redesignated, established, and expanded under section 202(2) 
of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 
410hh-1)).
    (b) Red Fish Defined.--For the purposes of subsection (a), the term 
``red fish'' means spawned-out sockeye salmon that has no significant 
commercial value.

SEC. 2. EFFECT ON TITLE AND JURISDICTION OF TIDAL AND SUBMERGED LANDS.

    (a) Title.--No provision of this Act shall be construed to 
invalidate or validate or in any other way affect any claim by the 
State of Alaska to title to any or all submerged lands, nor shall any 
actions taken pursuant to or in accordance with this Act operate under 
any provision or principle of the law to bar the State of Alaska from 
asserting at any time its claim of title to any or all of the submerged 
lands.
    (b) Jurisdiction.--Nothing in this Act nor in any actions taken 
pursuant to this Act shall be construed as expanding or diminishing 
Federal or State jurisdiction, responsibility, interests, or rights in 
management, regulation, or control over waters of the State of Alaska 
or submerged lands under any provision of Federal or State law.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```