alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Webster *& a. v.*Farnum *& Trs. and Claimant.*

A married woman is not estopped to claim the proceeds of timber sold from her separate estate by her husband acting as her agent, attached by trustee process as her husband’s property, when neither she nor her husband has been guilty of any actual or intentional fraud or misrepresentation.

Foreign Attachment. Issue between the plaintiffs and the claimant. Reported *ante*288. Facts found by a referee. The claimant is the defendant’s wife, and they live together on a farm owned by the claimant, which the defendant manages as her agent. In 1876 the claimant purchased a tract of wood and timber land lying near her farm, paying a part of the price with money bequeathed to her, and securing the balance by her note and a mortgage upon the premises, and taking the conveyance to her separate use, free from the control or interference of her husband. For the purpose of raising funds to pay off the mortgage, the defendant, acting as agent for the claimant, sold wood and timber from the lot to various parties, and among others sold and shipped to the trustees timber, for which they are now indebted in the sum of $100. When the purchase was made and the timber delivered, the- trustees did not understand that it belonged to the claimant, but the defendant made no claim that he owned it. The plaintiffs in good faith procured their writ, and caused it to be served on the trustees, in ignorance of any claim or ownership of the claimant. The defendant is and for some years has been insolvent, and at no time has had any pecuniary interest in the land or timber, both being the exclusive property of the claimant. There was no actual fraud by either the defendant or the claimant, nor was any intended by either of them in the transactions, and there was no evidence that the plaintiffs derived their knowledge of the indebtedness of the trustees from either the defendant or the claimant.

The plaintiffs, upon the foregoing facts, insisted that the claim.ant was estopped to claim the money in the hands of the trustees as against them. The referee ruled otherwise, and found that the claimant was entitled to the funds in the hands of the trustees. The court ordered judgment on the report for the claimant, and the plaintiffs excepted.

*Could,*Davis, and *Sanborn §•*Clark, for the plaintiffs.

*John Y.*Mugridge, for the claimant.

Clark, J.

Unaided by brief or argument from the plaintiffs’ counsel, we are unable to discover any error of law in this case. *Morn*v. *Cole,*51 N. H. 287; *Stevens*v. *Dennett, ib.*324, 333.

*Exceptions overruled.*

Stanley, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
§ 178.521 Standards for paper bags. ( a ) The following are identification codes for paper bags: ( 1 ) 5M1 for a multi-wall paper bag; and
( 2 ) 5M2 for a multi-wall water-resistant paper bag.
( b ) Construction requirements for paper bags are as follows: ( 1 ) Bags must be made of a suitable kraft paper, or of an equivalent paper with at least three plies. The strength of the paper and the construction of the bag must be appropriate to the capacity and intended use of the bag. Seams and closures must be sift-proof.
( 2 ) Paper bags 5M2: To prevent the entry of moisture, a bag of four plies or more must be made waterproof by the use of either a water-resistant ply as one of the two outermost plies or a water-resistant barrier made of a suitable protective material between the two outermost plies. A 5M2 bag of three plies must be made waterproof by the use of a water-resistant ply as the outermost ply. When there is danger of the lading reacting with moisture, or when it is packed damp, a waterproof ply or barrier, such as double-tarred kraft paper, plastics-coated kraft paper, plastics film bonded to the inner surface of the bag, or one or more inner plastics liners, must also be placed next to the substance. Seams and closures must be waterproof.
( 3 ) Maximum net mass: 50 kg (110 pounds).
( 4 ) UN5M1 and UN5M2 multi-wall paper bags that have paper wall basis weights that vary by not more than plus or minus 10 percent from the nominal basis weight reported in the initial design qualification test report.
[Amdt. 178-97, 55 FR 52717, Dec. 21, 1990, as amended at 56 FR 66285, Dec. 20, 1991; Amdt. 178-106, 59 FR 67521, Dec. 29, 1994; 79 FR 15046, Mar. 18, 2014; 85 FR 75716, Nov. 25, 2020]
-----Original Message----- 

From: zarah.tj@gmail.com [mailto:zarah.tj@gmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:54 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 27, 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, 

Zarah Thompson-Jacobs 

445 Canyon Springs Road 

Prescott, AZ 86303
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2282

To modify the navigation project for the Thames River, Connecticut to alter

the dimensions of a turning basin in Norwich, Connecticut.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 7, 1995

Mr. GEJDENSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To modify the navigation project for the Thames River,

Connecticut to alter the dimensions of a turning basin

in Norwich, Connecticut.

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

3 SECTION 1. RECONFIGURATION OF TURNING BASIN.

4 (a) PROJECT MODIFICATION.—The project for navi5 gation, Thames River, Connecticut, authorized by the first

6 section of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing construc7 tion, repair, and preservation of certain public works on

8 rivers and harbors, and for other purposes’’, approved Au9 gust 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1029), is modified to reconfigure

10 the turning basin in accordance with the following align-
2

•HR 2282 IH

1 ment: starting at a point on the eastern limit of the exist2 ing project, N251052.93, E783934.59, thence running

3 north 5 degrees 25 minutes 21.3 seconds east 341.06 feet

4 to a point, N251392.46, E783966.82, thence running

5 north 47 degrees 24 minutes 14.0 seconds west 268.72

6 feet to a point, N251574.34, E783769.00, thence running

7 north 88 degrees 41 minutes 52.2 seconds west 249.06

8 feet to a point, N251580.00, E783520.00, thence running

9 south 46 degrees 16 minutes 22.9 seconds west 318.28

10 feet to a point, N251360.00, E783290.00, thence running

11 south 19 degrees 01 minute 32.2 seconds east 306.76 feet

12 to a point, N251070.00, E783390.00, thence running

13 south 45 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds east 155.56 feet

14 to a point, N250960.00, E783500.00 on the existing west15 ern limit.

16 (b) NON-FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR INITIAL

17 DREDGING.—Any required initial dredging of the widened

18 portions of the turning basin identified in subsection (a)

19 shall be accomplished at non-Federal expense.

20 (c) CONFORMING DEAUTHORIZATION.—Those por21 tions of the existing turning basin which are not included

22 in the reconfigured turning basin as described in sub23 section (a) shall no longer be authorized after the date

24 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Filed 6/2/20 by Clerk of Supreme Court 

IN THE SUPREME COURT 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 

2020 ND 111 

Aparna Thiel, Plaintiff and Appellee 

 v. 

Kyle Thiel, Defendant and Appellant 

No. 20200002 

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial 

District, the Honorable Gail Hagerty, Judge. 

AFFIRMED. 

Per Curiam. 

Theresa L. Kellington, Bismarck, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee. 

Rodney E. Pagel, Bismarck, N.D., for defendant and appellant. 
1 

Thiel v. Thiel 

No. 20200002 

Per Curiam. 

[¶1] Kyle Thiel appeals from district court orders entered in August and 

September 2019 denying his motions for continuance and for appointment of a 

parenting investigator, and from a divorce judgment entered in November 

2019. He argues that the district court erred in failing to grant his motions for 

continuance to allow him to retain substitute trial counsel; erred in failing to 

grant his motions for appointment of a parenting investigator; and erred and 

violated his due process rights by making various evidentiary and procedural 

rulings at trial. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we 

summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). 

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. 

Jerod E. Tufte 

Gerald W. VandeWalle 

Lisa Fair McEvers 

Daniel J. Crothers
§ 24.5 Manner of notices and electronic signatures. ( a ) Each notice that the agency is required to provide to a property owner or occupant under this part, except the notice described at § 24.102(b), shall be personally served or sent by certified or registered first-class mail, return receipt requested (or by companies other than the United States Postal Service that provide the same function as certified mail with return receipts) and documented in agency files. A Federal funding agency may approve a process to permit the displaced person to elect to receive required notices by electronic delivery in lieu of the use of certified or registered first-class mail, return receipt requested, or personally served notices, when an agency demonstrates a means to document receipt of such notices by the property owner or occupant. A Federal funding agency may approve a process to permit the use of electronic signature which meet the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section.
( b ) An agency requesting use of electronic delivery of notices must include the following safeguards: ( 1 ) A process to inform property owners and occupants they will continue to receive Notices as described in paragraph (a) of this section unless they voluntarily elect to receive electronic notices.
( 2 ) A process to document and record when information is legally delivered in digital format. A date and timestamp must establish the date of delivery and receipt with an electronic record capable of retention.
( 3 ) A process to link the electronic signature with an electronic document in a way that can be used to determine whether the electronic document was changed subsequent to when an electronic signature was applied to the document.
( 4 ) A certification that use of electronic notices is consistent with existing State and Federal laws.
( c ) Each notice shall be written in plain, understandable language. Persons who are unable to read and understand the notice must be provided with appropriate translation and counseling. Each notice shall indicate the name and telephone number of a person who may be contacted for answers to questions or other needed help. (*See* appendix A to this part, section 24.5.)
( d ) A property owner or tenant may designate a representative to receive offers, correspondence, and information and to provide any information on their behalf required by the displacing agency by providing a written request to the agency (see § 24.2(a), definition of *owner's or tenant's designated representative*).
( e ) An agency requesting use of electronic signature of documents must include the following safeguards: ( 1 ) A process to document and record when information is legally delivered in digital format. A date and timestamp must establish the date of delivery and receipt with an electronic record capable of retention.
( 2 ) A process to link the electronic signature with an electronic document in a way that can be used to determine whether the electronic document was changed subsequent to when an electronic signature was applied to the document.
( 3 ) A certification that use of electronic signatures is consistent with existing State and Federal laws.
Exhibit 10.1 Letter Agreement


    Exhibit
      10.1

     

    March
      16,
      2006

    


    George
      Foreman Enterprises, Inc.

    100
      North
      Wilkes-Barre Boulevard, 4th Floor

    Wilkes-Barre,
      PA 18702

    ATTN: Efrem
      Gerszberg

     

    
      	
              Re:

            	
              Letter
                agreement dated November 23, 2005 between Circle Group Holdings,
                Inc.
                and
                George Foreman Enterprises, Inc.  ("Letter
                Agreement")                                
                 

            


    

     

    Ladies
      and Gentlemen:

    


    This
      letter shall confirm our agreement to extend the 90 day time period for Circle
      Group Holdings, Inc. (“CXN”) and George Foreman Enterprises, Inc. (“GFME”) to
      enter into definitive agreements as set forth in paragraph 21 of the above
      referenced Letter Agreement. CXN and GFME agree that paragraph 21 of the Letter
      Agreement is hereby modified to provide that the parties shall, on or before
      Friday, April 28, 2006, enter into a definitive agreement incorporating the
      terms of the Letter Agreement and such other provisions customary in
      transactions of this type.

     

    If
      the
      foregoing correctly sets forth your understanding, please so indicate by signing
      a counterpart of this letter and returning it to CXN by facsimile or e-mail,
      whereupon it will constitute a binding agreement between CXN and
      GFME.

     

                                            Very
      Truly
      Yours,

    


    Accepted
      and agreed to as of                       
      CIRCLE
      GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.

    the
      date
      first above written:

        
                        By: /s/
      Gregory J. Halpern       

    GEORGE
      FOREMAN ENTERPRISES, INC.               Name:
      Gregory
      J. Halpern

        
                        Title:   
      C.E.O.

    By: 
      /s/
      Efrem Gerszberg 

    Name:
      Efrem Gerszberg

       
      Title:   President
§ 245.201 Time limitations for certification. ( a ) After FRA approves a railroad's dispatcher certification program, that railroad shall not certify or recertify a person as a dispatcher if the railroad is making: ( 1 ) A determination concerning eligibility under §§ 245.111, 245.113, 245.115, and 245.303 and the eligibility data being relied on was furnished more than one year before the date of the railroad's certification decision;
( 2 ) A determination concerning visual or hearing acuity and the medical examination being relied on was conducted more than 450 days before the date of the railroad's certification decision; or
( 3 ) A determination concerning demonstrated knowledge and the knowledge examination being relied on was conducted more than one year before the date of the railroad's certification decision, or more than two years before the date of the railroad's certification decision if the railroad administers a knowledge testing program pursuant to § 245.121 at intervals that do not exceed two years.
( b ) The time limitations of paragraph (a) of this section do not apply to a railroad that is making a certification decision in reliance on determinations made by another railroad in accordance with § 245.125.
( c ) Except if a person is designated as a certified dispatcher under § 245.105(c) or (d), no railroad shall certify a person as a dispatcher for an interval of more than three years.
( d ) Each railroad shall issue each certified dispatcher a certificate that complies with § 245.207 no later than 30 days from the date of its decision to certify or recertify that person.
#### § 236.563 Delay time.

Delay time of automatic train stop or train control system shall not exceed 8 seconds and the spacing of signals to meet the requirements of § 236.24 shall take into consideration the delay time.
```

[Federal Register: January 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 16)]
[Notices]               
[Page 4053-4054]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26ja10-35]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act; Notice of Virtual Public Forum for EAC Standards 
Board; Notice of Virtual Public Forum for EAC Standards Board

DATE & TIME: Monday, February 8, 2010, 9 a.m. EST through Friday, 
February 19, 2010, 9 p.m. EST.

PLACE: EAC Standards Board Virtual Meeting Room at www.eac.gov. Once at

[[Page 4054]]

the main page of EAC's Web site, viewers should click the link to the 
Standards Board Virtual Meeting Room. The virtual meeting room will 
open on Monday, February 8, 2010, at 9 a.m. EST and will close on 
Friday, February 19, 2010, at 9 p.m. EST. The site will be available 24 
hours per day during that 12-day period.

PURPOSE: The EAC Standards Board will review and provide comment on 
Phase II of the Election Operations Assessment. Phase II of the 
Election Operations Assessment contains threat trees for the seven 
types of voting types covered by the Election Operations Assessment. 
These threat trees are intended to capture risks to the various types 
of voting systems and the possible mitigations. These threat trees feed 
into the Risk Assessment tool that will be used by the EAC and NIST in 
their work with the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines.
    The EAC Standards Board Virtual Meeting Room was established to 
enable the Standards Board to conduct business in an efficient manner 
in a public forum, including being able to review and discuss draft 
documents, when it is not feasible for an in-person board meeting. The 
Standards Board will not take any votes or propose any resolutions 
during the 12-day forum of February 8-February 19, 2010. Members will 
post comments about Phase II of the Election Operations Assessment.
    This activity is open to the public. The public may view the 
proceedings of this special forum by visiting the EAC Standards Board 
virtual meeting room at http://www.eac.gov at any time between Monday, 
February 8, 2010, 9 a.m. EST and Friday, February 19, 2010, 9 p.m. EST. 
The public also may view Phase II of the Election Operations 
Assessment, which will be posted on EAC's Web site beginning February 
8, 2010. The public may file written statements to the EAC Standards 
Board at standardsboard@eac.gov. Data on EAC's Web site is accessible 
to visitors with disabilities and meets the requirements of section 508 
of the Rehabilitation Act.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (202) 
566-3100.

Alice Miller,
Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-1619 Filed 1-22-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P
```
EXHIBIT
32




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of Champion Industries, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the period ending October 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Marshall T.
Reynolds, Todd R. Fry and Toney K. Adkins or, Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer and President and Chief Operating Officer, respectively, of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:
 
 ·
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.
 
 
 By:  /s/Marshall T. Reynolds
 Marshall
T. Reynolds
 Chief
Executive Officer
 
 
 By:  /s/ Todd R. Fry
 Todd R.
Fry
 Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 
 
 By:  /s/ Toney K. Adkins
 Toney K.
Adkins
 President
and Chief Operating Officer
 
 A signed
copy of this written statement required by section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request
 
 Date:
January 27, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.2





Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350)





The undersigned, as the chief financial officer of PAB Bankshares, Inc., certifies, to the best of my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PAB Bankshares, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.  The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.





Dated this 11th day of May, 2010.





By:
/s/ Nicole S. StokesNicole S. StokesExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to PAB Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by PAB Bankshares, Inc. and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.
#### William H. Argall, *Plaintiff, v.*Joseph Bachrach, *Defendant.*

Judgment for defendant on submitted case. Opinions by

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J.
SERVED: APRIL 9, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

GREAT WESTERN AIR, LLC 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0114 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2013WP910239) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washlngton, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Mark J. Connor, Respondent's Counsel 

Fox Rothschild, LLP 

3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 500 

Las Vegas, NV 89169 

FAX: 702-597-5503 

ONE COPY 

Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind Ave, Southwest 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2161 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0114 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
§ 24.107 Certain litigation expenses. The owner of the real property shall be reimbursed for any reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees, which the owner actually incurred because of a condemnation proceeding, if: ( a ) The final judgment of the court is that the agency cannot acquire the real property by condemnation;
( b ) The condemnation proceeding is abandoned by the agency other than under an agreed-upon settlement; or
( c ) The court having jurisdiction renders a judgment in favor of the owner in an inverse condemnation proceeding or the agency effects a settlement of such proceeding.