alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sanborn *v.*Putnam & *a.*

The retention of goods by the vendor after a sale, unless explained by facts which tend to give it notoriety, is conclusive evidence of fraud which avoids the sale as against the vendor’s creditors.

Trover on a sheriff’s receipt. Defence, title in one of the defendants. The plaintiff attached the goods described in the receipt as the property of Ray, and the creditors obtaining judgment, executions were issued, and the goods demanded and refused. Ray had been a tailor and a dealer in clothing and furnishing goods, and the defendant Putnam, his sister, had worked for him in his shop. Before the attachment Ray sold the goods and fixtures in the store to Putnam in payment of a debt due. Putnam took possession of the goods and control of the store, and for several days after the sale was there looking after the business. Ray worked for her, doing the same work as he had done before the sale, the business was carried oh in the same way, and there was no visible change of possession. In explanation of the want of change of possession, the defendants offered to prove that Ray was not employed by the defendant for fifteen days after the sale; there was no other suitable room in the village that the defendant could hire for a shop or store; there was no secresy nor actual fraud in the sale, but it was in good faith made by both parties, and Ray’s creditors, for whom the attachments were made, then knew that Putnam claimed to own the property by purchase from her brother. The court excluded the evidence as affording no satisfactory explanation of a want of change of possession, and the defendants excepted. Subject to the exception, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff.

*507
      *Fling Chase,*for the defendants.

*Barnard 8f Barnard*and *K. F. Dearborn,*for the plaintiff.

Allen, J.

There was no evidence of an open, visible change of possession of the property; and in a sale of chattels, retention of possession by the vendor, unless satisfactorily explained, is conclusive evidence of a secret trust and of fraud which defeats the sale as against the vendor’s creditors. *Lang*v. *Stockwell,*55 N. H. 561; *Cutting*v. Jackson, 56 N. H. 253; *Plaisted*v. *Holmes,*58 N. H. 294; *Sumner*v. *Dalton,*58 N. H. 295; *Parker*v. *Marvell,*60 N. H. 30. In the evidence offered to explain the want of a change of possession, and excluded as affording no satisfactory explanation, there was nothing tending to show such a publicity in the sale as would naturally give it notoriety. *Cutting*v. *Jackson, supra,*255. The exceptions are overruled, and there is

*Judgment on the verdict.*

Stanley, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
# C_2005042EN.01003201.xml

| 18.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/32

---

Corrigendum to Commission Communication 2003/C 118/03 regarding the explanatory note regarding the types of enterprise to be taken into account for calculating the headcount and the financial amounts

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 118 of 20 May 2003
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 118 of 20 May 2003

(2005/C 42/12)

On page 8 of the Official Journal, in the explanatory note regarding the types of enterprise to be taken into account for calculating the headcount and the financial amounts, under the section ‘Type 2: Partner Enterprise’, the first two indents of the second paragraph are replaced by the following:

| ‘— | it has a holding or voting rights equal to or greater than 25 % in the other enterprise, or the other enterprise has a holding or voting rights equal to or greater than 25 % in the applicant enterprise, |
| --- | --- |

‘—

it has a holding or voting rights equal to or greater than 25 % in the other enterprise, or the other enterprise has a holding or voting rights equal to or greater than 25 % in the applicant enterprise,

| — | the enterprises are not linked enterprises within the meaning defined below, which means, among other things, that the voting rights of one in the other do not exceed 50 %, and |
| --- | --- |

—

the enterprises are not linked enterprises within the meaning defined below, which means, among other things, that the voting rights of one in the other do not exceed 50 %, and

| — | [...]’ |
| --- | --- |

—

[...]’

Footnote (3) is deleted.

In the first sentence of the first subparagraph of the section ‘Type 3: Linked Enterprise’, the words ‘the capital or’ are deleted.

---
#### William Herring, Appellant, v. New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed. Opinions . by

Brady and Daniels, JJ.
-----Original Message----- 

From: bdcange@aol.com [mailto:bdcange@aol.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 6:34 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Brian Cange 

60 Park Terrace West, A80 

New York, NY 10034
#### Norman J. Gould et al., Respondents, *v.*The Village of Seneca Falls et al., Appellants.

*Gould*v. *Village of Seneca*Falls, 137 App. Div. 417, affirmed.

(Argued November 18, 1910;

decided December 6, 1910.)

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered March 12, 1910, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting an injunction restraining the defendants from issuing certain village bonds and from levying a tax for the payment thereof.

The following questions were certified : 1. On the 22d day of June, 1909, were women who resided in the village of Seneca Falls, N. Y., and were the owners of property in said village, assessed upon the last preceding assessment roll thereof, entitled to vote on the proposition submitted at the special election held on said date ? 2. Did the addition of *524the following words at the end of said proposition make the same *“*a proposition to raise money by tax or assessment,” within the meaning of article 3, section 41, subdivision 2, of chapter 64 of the Laws of 1909 (the Village Law): “ and shall there be raised annually, by the levy and collection of a tax upon the taxable property in said village, a sum, which with the net revenue derived from said water works system, shall be sufficient to pay the principal and the interest on the said several bonds as such principal and interest shall mature and become due and payable ? ”

*Clarence A. MacDonald*and *William H. Hurley*for appellants.

*J. N. Hammond*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs, and questions certified answered in the affirmative, on opinion of Williams, J., below.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.
-----Original Message----- 

From: chocolatey_smooth@hotmail.com 

[mailto:chocolatey_smooth@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 11:09 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Cass Owens 

6720 N. Sheridan Rd, Apt. 202 

Chicago, IL 60626
Exhibit
32.2
 
 
 
 STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
 TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the amendment to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of China
International Tourism Holdings Ltd (the "Company") for the year ended December
31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
I, Wang, Xiao Jun, our Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
that:
  * the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  * the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 CHINA
      INTERNATIONAL TOURISM HOLDINGS LTD
                (Registrant)Date: August
      18, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Wang, Xiao
      JunWang,
      Xiao Jun
                Chief
      Financial Officer
  This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 154 (Friday, August 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 45057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3903]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel, Executive Function.
    Date: August 22, 2007.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Richard D. Crosland, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Research, NINDS/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., 
Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-594-0635, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2d0c190939ad7e2cccbca8cc5cdd4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ccbeaffefdf4b98ca2a5a4e2aba3ba">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 2, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-3903 Filed 8-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
;: a n la 1901 North Moore Street *P.O. Box 9245*Arlington, Virginia 22209 *703/525-9565 *Fax 703/525-0718 Web Site: httpA/www.garnanet.org February 5, 1999
Mr. Terry Logee U.S. Department ofEnergy Office ofCodes and Standards Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Mail Station EE-43 1000 Independence Ave. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585-0121 Dear Terry: Attached for your information is a summary ofthe results ofall the residential gas, electric and oil water heater tests conducted in the years 1994 through 1997. This summary shows the average ratio ofthemeasured energy factor compared to the listed energy factor for all units by fuel type. The information also includes the number ofsamples tested andrerates. This same information is still being compiled forthe 1998 tests. We will provide itto you when itbecomes available. In reviewing this information, please be aware that the large number ofrerates in 1994 and 1995, particularly for the electric models, was the result ofthe cumulative effect of 1)the major change the industry made to use foam insulation thatdid not use a chlorofluorocarbon blowing agent (i.e. CFC- 11) and 2) changes made to our program to tighten the acceptance criteria. There is some other information that I would like to bring to your attention. While there are hundreds oflistings ofresidential storage water heaters in the GAMA efficiency directory, itmust be recognized that many ofthese are different brand names ofthe same basic model. Based on the last time we did a review ofour listings in terms ofdistinct basic models at thebeginning of 1998, there are 305 distinct basic models ofgas storage water heaters and 220 distinct basic models of electric storage water heaters listed in our program. Ofthe gas models, there are only 25 distinct basic models that have a rated volume of40 gallons or more and an energy factor of.62 or higher. Ofthe electric models, there are only 22 distinct basic models that have arated volume of50 gallons or more and an energy factor of .Q2 or higher. This information must be considered in any discussion ofthe availability ofmodels at the higher levels ofefficiency. There is some moredetailed information that I am still in the process ofcompiling. Ihope to be ableto forward that to you sometime next week. Sincerely, 

# i 

# to Frank A. Stanonik Director ofTechnical Services FAS:tyj Attachment An Association of Manufacturers of Appliances and Equipment for Utilization, Distribution and Control of Gas t

### SUMMARY OF GAMA WATER HEATER EFFICIENCY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM TESTS (1994-1997) Ave. EF Ratio No. of First/Second Samples EF Rerates G 0 -E ALL G 0 E ALL G 0 E ALL 1997 101.2 104.5 99.7 100.5 101/7 3/0 95/5 199/12 8 0 8 16 1996 101.4 102.9 99.4 100.4 101/3 3/0 101/3 205/6 6 0 6 12 1995 101.5 104.6 98.4 100 96/2 3/0 89/12 188/14 4 0 24 28 1994 99.4 108.9 97.2 98.5 84/6 3/0 82/17 169/23 14 0 27 41

Ave. EF Ratio =Measured / Listed G

- Gas

- Oil E

- Electric
June 25 ,	2015

U.	S.	Department	of	Transportation Docket	Management	System 1200	New	Jersey	Ave.,	SE Washington	DC	20590 Re: Amendment	to	Exemption Application	No. FAA- 2015 - 0568 - 0001 filed pursuant	to	Section	333	of	the	FAA	Reform	Act	and	Part	11	of	the Federal	Aviation	Regulations	in	Regulatory	Docket	No. FAA- 2015 - 0568 . Dear	Sir	or	Madam; High	Flight	Photo has been	granted	an	exemption, Exemption	No.	11455 , (hereinafter	the	Exemption) for	the	purpose	of aerial	imaging with	sUAS . High Flight	Photo hereby	requests	an	amendment	to	the	Exemption	to	allow an additional model of	unmanned	aircraft systems	(UAS)	that	fully	complies with	the	conditions	of the	Exemption. High	Flight	Photo wishes	to	operate the	Kespry	UAS under	the	same	terms and	conditions	contained	in	the	Exemption.		Attached	hereto,	and	submitted	as	a confidential	document,	is	the	Flight	Operations	and	Procedures	Manual	for	the Kespry UAS.	All	operations	of	the	additional	UA S	will	be	in	full	compliance	with	the terms	of	the	Exemption. Please	contact	the	undersigned	should	you	have	any	questions	concerning this	request	for	an	amendment	to	the	Exemption. Sincerely	yours,

Mike	Porter High	Flight	Photo

Gabriel	Dobbs Kespry,	Inc.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DIONICIO REYES-PEREZ, AKA

Dionicio Perez,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-10205

D.C. No. 4:09-cr-01423-RCCHCE-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 19, 2012 

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Dionicio Reyes-Perez appeals his jury conviction and sentence for illegal

reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

FILED

MAY 17 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Reyes-Perez argues that statements he made at the time of his arrest and

during a motions hearing should have been suppressed. Even assuming error, there

was no prejudice. The uncontroverted evidence showed that Reyes-Perez was

found on the roof of a warehouse just across the United States-Mexico border, that

he had previously been deported to his country of origin, Mexico, and that he had

expressly abandoned any claims for relief from deportation. The denial of the

suppression motion did not have a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in

determining the jury’s verdict.” Ghent v. Woodford, 279 F.3d 1121, 1127 (9th Cir.

2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because any error was harmless, the

conviction must be affirmed. 

At sentencing, the court denied a sentencing reduction for acceptance of

responsibility and, in doing so, relied at least to some extent on the ground that

Reyes-Perez had put the government to its burden of proof. This was error. See

United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 369 F.3d 1076, 1089 (9th Cir. 2004). For this

reason, the sentence must be reconsidered. The other challenges to the sentence

are without merit.

We AFFIRM the conviction, VACATE the sentence, and REMAND for

the district court to reconsider whether Reyes-Perez should receive a sentencing

reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
-----Original Message----- 

From: dianam@hrtaz.com [mailto:dianam@hrtaz.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 8:40 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Diana Murray 

3638 E Joan de Arc Ave 

Phoenix, AZ 85032
CTRL-a to begin

ESC to stop

6.72 6.72 6.74 6.74 6.73 6.72 6.72 6.72 6.74 6.74 6.73 V 

# 116°F Continuous temperature and flow display6.11 6.13 6.15 6.14 6.14 6.13 6.12 6.14 6.14 6.13 6.13 V 

# 38.3 ft/s Continuous temperature and flow displayMassena West Pretest Anemometer Data 4-25-13



## 48.56603627 Vd Desired velocity in Duct in Method 14 room (ft/sec) 

## 1.416666667 Dn Diameter of a roof monitor nozzle (ft) 

## 1.229 Dd Diameter of a duct at sampling location (ft) 

## 4.570133333 Vm Average velocity of the air stream in roof vents for 36hr period before test (ft/sec) 3.116 Vm Average velocity of the air stream in roof vents for 36 hr period before test (mph)
* To use, enter the new average Vm from anemometers
Date: 4-25-13 TF MW and the spreadsheet automatically recalculates a new **A = 0.29** desired duct velocity. **B = 0.20**

**Preliminary adjustment of velocity**

delta P across entire traverse AVG = 0.707

Ts = 538 R Vs = KpCp(sqrt delta P avg) X sqrt (Ts/Ps X Ms) Ps = 29.75 + 0.22 = 29.97 Ms = 28.84 Vs = (85.49)(0.84)(sqrt 0.707) X sqrt (538 / (29.97)(28.84)) Kp = 85.49 Cp = 0.84 **Vs = 47.6 ft/sec**
Editorial Note on Part 173
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 173 appear at 70 FR 56098, Sept. 23, 2005.

§ 173.221 Polymeric beads, expandable and Plastic molding compound. ( a ) For non-bulk shipments of Polymeric beads (or granules), expandable *evolving flammable vapor* and Plastic molding compound *in dough, sheet, or extruded rope form, evolving flammable vapor* the following packagings are authorized: ( 1 ) *Single packagings.* Metal box (4A, 4B, or 4N); Wooden box (4C1 or 4C2); Plywood box (4D); Fiberboard box (4G); Reconstituted wood box (4F); Plastic box (4H1 or 4H2); Plywood drums: (1D) or Fiber drums (1G) with sealed inner plastic liners; in vapor tight metal or plastic drums (1A1, 1A2, 1B1, 1B2, 1N1, 1N2, 1H1 or 1H2); or in vapor tight metal or plastic jerricans (3A1, 3A2, 3B1, 3B2, 3H1, or 3H2).
( 2 ) *Combination packagings* — ( i ) *Outer packagings:* Steel drum: 1A1 or 1A2; Aluminum drum: 1B1 or 1B2; Plywood drum: 1D; Fiber drum: 1G; Plastic drum: 1H1 or 1H2; Metal drum other than steel or aluminum: 1N1 or 1N2; Steel jerrican: 3A1 or 3A2; Plastic jerrican: 3H1 or 3H2; Aluminum jerrican: 3B1 or 3B2; Steel box: 4A; Aluminum box: 4B; Natural wood box: 4C1 or 4C2; Plywood box: 4D; Reconstituted wood box: 4F; Fiberboard box: 4G; Plastic box: 4H1 or 4H2; or Metal box other than steel or aluminum: 4N.
( ii ) *Inner packagings.* Glass receptacles, Plastic receptacles, Metal receptacles, Paper receptacles, or Fiber receptacles.
( 3 ) *Non-specification packagings.* Non-specification packagings when transported in dedicated vehicles or freight containers. The packagings need not conform to the requirements for package testing in part 178 of this subchapter but must be capable of containing any evolving gases from the contents during normal conditions of transportation.
( b ) Bulk shipments of Polymeric beads (or granules), expandable, *evolving flammable vapor* or Plastic molding compounds *in dough, sheet or extruded rope, evolving flammable vapor* may be packed in non-specification bulk packagings. Except for transportation by highway and rail, bulk packagings must be capable of containing any gases evolving from the contents during normal conditions of transportation.
( c ) For transportation by vessel, the provisions of § 176.907 must be met.
( d ) *Exceptions.* When it can be demonstrated that no flammable vapor, resulting in a flammable atmosphere, is evolved according to test U1 (Test method for substances liable to evolve flammable vapors) of Part III, sub-section 38.4.4 of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter), polymeric beads, expandable need not be classed as Class 9 (UN2211). This test should only be performed when de-classification of a substance is considered.
[64 FR 10779, Mar. 5, 1999, as amended at 78 FR 1089, Jan. 7, 2013; 82 FR 15884, Mar. 30, 2017; 87 FR 44995, July 26, 2022]
#### § 178.347 Specification DOT 407; cargo tank motor vehicle.
[Civ. No. 957.

Third Appellate District.

September 30, 1912.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. QUONG SING and SING KEE, Appellants.

Appeal prom Order Denying New Trial—Order Reversed upon Stipulation.—Agreeably to the stipulation of the parties, the order denying a new trial is reversed on the authority of *People*v. *Quong Sing, ante,*p. 26.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Placer County denying a new trial. J. E. Prewitt, Judge.

Meredith & Landis, and John M. Fulweiler, for Appellants.

Chas. A. Tuttle, District Attorney, and Ben F. Tabor, for Respondents.

CHIPMAN, P. J.

Agreeably to stipulation of the parties, the appeal in this cause, from the order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial, was submitted to be heard and determined in the appeal from the judgment in the same cause, No. 903, *ante,*p. 26 [127 Pac. 1052],

For the reasons stated in the opinion this day filed in No. 903, the order is reversed.

Burnett, J., and Hart, J., concurred.