alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Curran et al. v. Clifford.

Damages — Bkeach of Conteact.

Where the evidence tends to show the plaintiffs right to damages sustained by reason of being prevented from performing his contract, it is error to enter a nonsuit.

*Appeal from the County Court of Arapahoe County.*

Mr. Thos. F. Ashworth, for appellants.

*290No appearance for appellee.

Thomson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

In the latter part of August, 1893, the appellee contracted with the appellants to roof a building for him on Market street, Denver. By the terms of the contract the roof was to be of gravel, and to be made three-ply. The work was to be done in a first-class manner, and guaranteed by the appellants for five years. The price agreed upon for the job was $237. Appellants made an agreement with a Mr. Githens to do the work under their supervision, and in conformity with their instructions, for $158. The appellants had selected the material for the roof and commenced work, and Mr. Githens had brought two loads of gravel to be used on the roof, when the appellee ordered the work- stopped, saying that he had let the contract to another party, and refused to permit them to proceed further. He gave no reason for this action except that he objected to Mr. Githens. They accordingly left and did not return.

The appellants brought this action before a justice of the peace to recover the damages sustained by reason of their being prevented from completing their contract, and recovered judgment for $79.00. The defendant appealed to the county court. The evidence for the plaintiffs at the trial there disclosed the facts as we have stated them, and also showed that the plaintiffs had sustained substantial damage; and upon that evidence the court, at the defendant’s instance, gave judgment of nonsuit in his favor.

The record does not advise us why the nonsuit was granted. Probably the court accepted the reason given by the defendant in his motion, which was that the evidence disclosed a contract between the parties requiring the personal services of the plaintiffs, and which was not a contract that could be turned over to somebody else to perform. The evidence does not disclose such a contract, and the work was not turned over to somebody else to perform, except under the *291supervision and direction of the plaintiffs. Upon the evidence as it stood the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment, and if there was any reason why it should not be given, the defendant should have been required to show it.

The judgment will be reversed.

*Reversed.*
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 13-1070 September Term, 2013

EPA-78FR2882

Filed On: August 1, 2014

State of Maryland, et al.,

Petitioners

v.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Respondent

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

Utility Air Regulatory Group,

Intervenor

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

Consolidated with 13-1072

BEFORE: Brown, Millett, and Pillard, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the motions to govern future proceedings and the responses

thereto; and EPA’s motion for partial vacatur and remand, which no party has opposed, it is

ORDERED that the motion for partial vacatur and remand be granted, and that EPA’s

decision not to make findings with respect to Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 42 U.S.C.

§ 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as set forth at 78 Fed. Reg. 2,882, 2,884-85 (Jan. 15, 2013), be vacated

and remanded to EPA for further consideration in light of EPA v. EME Homer City Gen., L.P.,

134 S. Ct. 1584,1610 (2014). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of these petitions for review be dismissed in

full without vacatur or remand of any other aspect of the final rule or any additional relief. This

dismissal is without prejudice to any claim for costs of litigation and/or attorney fees that

Petitioners may present pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7607(f), and any opposition thereto. 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is

directed to issue forthwith to respondent a certified copy of this order in lieu of formal mandate.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Amy Yacisin 

Deputy Clerk/LD

USCA Case #13-1070 Document #1505606 Filed: 08/01/2014 Page 1 of 1
ERRATA SHEET FOR AGENDA ITEM 28 Amend Rule 1130 – Graphic Arts

BOARD MEETING DATE: May 2, 2014

RESOLUTION

After the seventh WHEREAS... d elete (in BOLD STRIKEOUT ) and add (in BOLD DOUBLE UNDERLINE) the following language:

WHEREAS , the SCAQMD Governing Board has directed staff, consistent with current practices, to consider uncertainties associated with an approved test method prior to taking any compliance action. For Thin Film Energy Curable products, taking into consideration precision data from ASTM Test Met hod 7767, the uncertainty for a product with VOC of 10 g/l may yield up to 16 g/l as teste d ; and

WHEREAS , the SCAQMD Governing Board has directed staff to work with stakeholders to continue the development and use of appropriate alte rnative method(s) to determine an equivalent VOC content, including the use of formulation

data , and
Exhibit 23.2





AJM Petroleum Consultants








March 8, 2010





Consent of Independent Petroleum Engineers and Geologists





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-163442) on Form S-3 of Tri-Valley Corporation (the “Company”) and in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, of the reference to AJM Petroleum Consultants, and the inclusion of our report dated January 27, 2010.





AJM Petroleum Consultants





By:
/s/ Robin G. BertramRobin G. Bertram, P. Eng.Vice President Engineering








Calgary, Alberta, Canada





jct
#### § 28.149 Program accessibility: Discrimination prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in § 28.150, no qualified individual with handicaps shall, because the Department's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with handicaps, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the Department.
<PAGE>
                                                             EXHIBIT 13(a)(viii)





MANAGEMENT'S REPORT ON RESPONSIBILITY FOR FINANCIAL REPORTING

The management of CLARCOR is responsible for the preparation, integrity and
objectivity of the Company's financial statements and the other financial
information in this report. The financial statements were prepared in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America
and reflect, in all material respects, the results of operations and the
Company's financial position for the periods shown. The financial statements are
presented on the accrual basis of accounting and, where appropriate, reflect
estimates based upon judgments of management.

In addition, management maintains a system of internal controls designed to
assure that Company assets are safeguarded from loss or unauthorized use or
disposition. Also, the controls system provides assurance that transactions are
authorized according to the intent of management and are accurately recorded to
permit the preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles. For the periods covered by the financial
statements in this report, management believes this system of internal controls
was effective concerning all material matters. The effectiveness of the controls
system is supported by the selection and training of qualified personnel, an
organizational structure that provides an appropriate division of
responsibility, a strong budgetary system of control and a comprehensive
internal audit program.

The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, which is composed of three
independent directors, serves in an oversight role to assure the integrity and
objectivity of the Company's financial reporting process. The Committee meets
periodically with representatives of management and the external and internal
auditors to review matters of a material nature related to financial reporting
and disclosure and the planning, results and recommendations of audits. The
external and internal auditors have free access to the Audit Committee. The
Committee is also responsible for reporting to the Board of Directors concerning
its selection of the external auditors.

/s/  NORMAN E. JOHNSON     /s/  BRUCE A. KLEIN        /s/  MARCIA S. BLAYLOCK
-----------------------   -------------------------  --------------------------
NORMAN E. JOHNSON        BRUCE A. KLEIN              MARCIA S. BLAYLOCK
CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT AND  VICE PRESIDENT-FINANCE AND  VICE PRESIDENT, CONTROLLER
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

January 8, 2004

                                                                      CLARCOR 25
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                          55,053
<SECURITIES>                                    12,742
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,698
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,609
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               154,105
<PP&E>                                         125,256
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (85,742)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 230,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           89,927
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       132,333
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,044
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   230,304
<SALES>                                        147,567
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               253,063
<CGS>                                           19,204
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,754
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               159,014
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,121
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,536
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,585
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,585
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32



</TABLE>
Page I nf 1 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: h33y 28,2009 

Tracking No, 809acfc9 

Comments Due: May 28,2009 

Docket: IRS-2009_-00@J 

Rcquest Svr Information for Paul U'ellstonc and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: IRS-3OOC)-00OX-I~~.l_I!I 

Request for Infonnal inn Rcgading the Paul Wellstone arid Pctc Dvmenici Mental Health Parity 

and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Document: IRS,3009:0008,OCIL1 I 

Comment on FR Doc: # E9-09629 

Submitter Information 

Nnme: Victoria 1,urnitlita Ibric 

Addrcss: 

Pasadcna. CA, 

Submitter's Representative: Dr. Victoria L, ibric 

Organization: Neurofeedhack and Ncuro Rehab Institute, Inc 

Government Agcncy l'ype: Feclcral 

Govcrnmcnt Agency: PHS 

General Comment 

3-10 Sec. 2. EXCLUSION OF COVERAGE PROHIBITED. (a) A health 

3- 1 1 benefit plan limy not sxcludc mvcragt: fur cognitive rehabilitation 

3- 12 therapy, cognitive coinmuniution therapy, neur~cognitive therapy 

3-1 3 and rchabilitatiun, neurobehavioral, neurophysiological, 

3- 14 nc~~ropsy ~hological, and psychnphysinlogical tcsting ur treatment, 

3 - 15 neurofeedbock therapy, re~nediation, pust-acute transition services, 

3- 1 6 or community reintegration scrviccs necessary as a result of and 

3- 17 related to ail acquired brain injury. 

It is a ~nattcr of URGENCY to pay attention to the ahovc tucntioned Sec. 2. The 

neurokedback and the neumcogni tive therapy arc absolut Jy necessary in the 

process of rehabilitation of i~~dividuals who sul'fmtsd any kind of brain injuries 

(of phy sical, chemical, Infectious and/or errlnl ior~al Iraumas, such as PTSD !)
-----Original Message----- 

From: cookgg@gmail.com [mailto:cookgg@gmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:30 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, 

greg cook 

407 shore 

oldsmar, FL 34677
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SE UN JEUN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

Nos. 09-70191 and 09-73094

Agency No. A046-485-508

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of Orders of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted February 6, 2014

Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and COGAN, District

Judge.

** 

Se Un Jeun, a citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision upholding an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)

decision finding Jeun removable for assisting three Korean aliens in illegally

FILED

FEB 25 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

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

 ** The Honorable Brian M. Cogan, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
entering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E). Jeun also

petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider. Having

previously consolidated the two petitions, we now deny both. 

The BIA’s removability determination is supported by substantial evidence. 

See Sanchez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 1107, 1109-10 (9th Cir. 2012). We see no error

in the BIA’s finding that Jeun’s testimony was implausible as compared to the

statements of the three Korean aliens and the immigration inspector. 

Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion in denying Jeun’s motion to reconsider. 

For the most part, Jeun merely repeated arguments from his appeal of the IJ’s

decision, which is an inadequate basis for reconsideration. See Socop-Gonzalez v.

I.N.S., 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001). Additionally, Jeun raised the

argument that his statements should have been suppressed pursuant to de

Rodriguez-Echeverria v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2008), for the first time

in his motion to reconsider, when he could have raised this argument before the

BIA issued its decision dismissing Jeun’s appeal. Furthermore, there is no

indication in the record or in Jeun’s brief that Jeun was “arrested without warrant

and placed in formal proceedings” such that he should have been advised of his

rights pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c). In light of these facts, the BIA did not act

2
“arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law” in denying Jeun’s motion to

reconsider. Cano-Merida v. I.N.S., 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Finally, Jeun argues that the government’s deportation of Yeol Hong, one of

the three Korean aliens, violated his constitutional rights pursuant to our decision

in United States v. Leal-Del Carmen, 697 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2012). We need not

determine whether Leal-Del Carmen applies in immigration proceedings, as

opposed to criminal proceedings like Leal-Del Carmen, as the record contains no

indication that Hong would have been a favorable witness to Jeun, that the

government acted in bad faith in deporting Hong, or that Hong’s deportation

prejudiced Jeun. Id. at 969-70.

PETITIONS DENIED. 

3
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2291

To extend the Administrative Conference of the United States, and for other

purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 8, 1995

Mr. GEKAS (for himself and Mr. REED) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To extend the Administrative Conference of the United

States, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION.

4 The first sentence of section 596 of title 5, United

5 States Code, is amended to read as follows: ‘‘There are

6 authorized to be appropriated to carry out the purposes

7 of this subchapter not more than $1,800,000 for fiscal

8 year 1995, $1,800,000 for fiscal year 1996, $1,800,000

9 for fiscal year 1997, and $1,800,000 for fiscal year

10 1998.’’.
2

•HR 2291 IH

1 SEC. 2. MEMBERS’ CAPACITY.

2 Section 593(b) of title 5, United States Code, is

3 amended by adding after and below paragraph (6) the fol4 lowing: ‘‘The members appointed by the Chairman, with

5 the approval of the Council, shall participate in the activi6 ties of the Conference solely as private individuals without

7 official responsibility on behalf of the Government of the

8 United States and, therefore, shall not be considered to

9 hold an office of profit or trust for purposes of the eighth

10 clause of section 9 of Article I of the Constitution.’’.

11 SEC. 3. QUORUM.

12 Section 595(a) of title 5, United States Code, is

13 amended by adding after and below paragraph (2) the fol14 lowing: ‘‘A majority of the members of the Conference

15 shall constitute a quorum with regard to any final action

16 taken under paragraph (1) or (2).’’.

17 SEC. 4. CHAIRMAN’S COMPENSATION.

18 (a) EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE RATE.—Section

19 593(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by

20 striking the period and the remainder of such section and

21 inserting a semicolon and by adding after the matter

22 added by section 2 the following: ‘‘The Chairman shall be

23 paid at the rate specified for level III of the Executive

24 Schedule and may continue to serve until the Chairman’s

25 successor is appointed and has qualified.’’.
3

•HR 2291 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 5314 of

2 title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the

3 end the following:

4 ‘‘Chairman, Administrative Conference of

5 the United States.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT
21.6
 
 
 
 METROPOLITAN EDISON
COMPANY
 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE
REGISTRANT
 AT DECEMBER 31,
2004
 
 
 
 STATE
      OFNAME OF
      SUBSIDIRY
    
    BUSINESS
    
    ORGANIZATIONYork Haven
      Power Company
    
    
    Hydroelectric
      Generation
    
    
    New
      YorkMet-Ed
      Preferred Capital, II, Inc.
    
    
    Special-Purpose
      Finance
    
    
    DelawareMet-Ed
      Capital II, L.P.
    
    
    Special-Purpose
      Finance
    
    
    DelawareMet-Ed
      Capital Trust
    
    
    Special-Purpose
      Finance
    
    
    DelawareMet-Et
      Funding LLC
    
    
    Special-Purpose
      Finance
    
    
    Delaware
 
 
 Note:  Met-Ed, along with
its affiliates JCP&L and Penelec, collectively own all of the common stock
of Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation, a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation
organized for nuclear experimental purposes which is now inactive. The carrying
value of the owners’ investment has been written down to a nominal
value.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 10, 2024

NO. 03

- 23

- 00786

- CV

Sarah Kuhl , Appellant

v.

Rettie Leibowitz , Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES SM ITH AND THEOFANIS

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on November 6, 2023 . Having

reviewed the record , the Court holds that Sarah Kuhl has not prosecuted her appeal and did not

comply with a notice from the C lerk of this C ourt

. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appea l for

want of prosecution. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of

costs is made.
§ 229.73 Wheel sets. ( a ) The variation in the circumference of wheels on the same axle may not exceed 1 ⁄ 4 inch (two tape sizes) when applied or turned.
( b ) The maximum variation in the diameter between any two wheel sets in a three-powered-axle truck may not exceed 3 ⁄ 4 inch, except that when shims are used at the journal box springs to compensate for wheel diameter variation, the maximum variation may not exceed 11 ⁄ 4 inch. The maximum variation in the diameter between any two wheel sets on different trucks on a locomotive that has three-powered-axle trucks may not exceed 11 ⁄ 4 inch. The diameter of a wheel set is the average diameter of the two wheels on an axle.
( c ) On standard gauge locomotives, the distance between the inside gauge of the flanges on non-wide flange wheels may not be less than 53 inches or more than 531 ⁄ 2 inches. The distance between the inside gauge of the flanges on wide flange wheels may not be less than 53 inches or more than 531 ⁄ 4 inches.
( d ) The distance back to back of flanges of wheels mounted on the same axle shall not vary more than 1 ⁄ 4 inch.
Docket: EBSA-2009-0010 

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: EBSA-2009-0010-0409 

Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Document: EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0636 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167 

Submitter Information 

Name: JOHN EDWARD JAMES 

Address: 

1427 BRIERWOOD ROAD 

HAVERTOWN, PA, 19083 

Email: JOHNE3041@HOTMAIL.COM 

Phone: 610-449-2177 

Organization: NAMI 

General Comment 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (Pub.L. 111-148) is expected to expand 

health care coverage to an additional 32 million citizens and legal immigrants by 2019 through a 

combination of state-based private insurance exchanges and a Medicaid expansion. In addition, 

the new 

law includes a number of reforms to curb harmful insurance company practices as well as 

provisions to 

slow the growth 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: April 30, 2010 

Received: April 29, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80ae374c 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 4/30/2010