alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MAYBELLE V. GORDON AND WILLIAM E. GORDON, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. ROLLO TRANSIT CORPORATION, BODY CORPORATE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted January 27, 1933

Decided July 29, 1933.

*690Before Justices Bodine and Donges.

Por the defendant-appellant, *Applegate, Stevens, Foster <& Reussille.*

Por the plaintiffs-appellees, *Quinn, Parsons & Doremus (Theodore D. Parsons).*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs recovered a judgment for injuries suffered by reason of one of the plaintiffs (a married woman) being thrown by a sudden jerk against the arm of a seat of one of defendant’s buses. She was a passenger and was changing her seat to join some friends who had just boarded. The testimony indicates a jerk occasioned by the driver shifting from first to second gear.

Of the grounds of appeal none raise legal questions. PTo specific grounds were stated to the trial judge as a basis for the motion to nonsuit or direct a verdict. "We should not, therefore, reverse because he denied the motion. *Wood*v. *Public Service Corp.,*74 *N. J. L.*51; 64 *Atl. Rep.*980.

Por the first time, it is argued that the injury was the result of an unavoidable accident. The proofs do not so indicate, but we may not consider the matter because no such suggestion was made to the trial judge.

On appeal, this court will not review the weight of evidence. *Burket*v. *Ellis,*105 *N. J. L.*560; 143 *Atl. Rep.*347.

Lastly, error is assigned because the trial judge refused to charge a certain request. The record does not disclose the request. We cannot draw upon our imagination to reverse a judgment. *Cornish*v. *Jenks,*109 *N. J. L.*87; 160 *Atl. Rep.*521.

The judgment will be affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 3.1
 Restated for SEC Filing Purposes Only




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



4




---



##### 



5




---



##### 



6




---



##### 



7




---



##### 



8




---



##### 



9




---



##### 



10




---



##### 



11




---



##### 



12




---



##### 



13




---



##### 



14




---



##### 



15




---



##### 



16




---



##### 



17




---



##### 



18
IV

House Calendar No. 119

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 324

[Report No. 107–353]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

bill (H.R. 3338) making appropriations for the Department of Defense

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 20 (legislative day, DECEMBER 19), 2001

Mrs. MYRICK, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to

accompany the bill (H.R. 3338) making appropriations

for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending

September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 3338) making appropriations for

4 the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending Sep5 tember 30, 2002, and for other purposes. All points of

6 order against the conference report and against its consid-
2

HRES 324 RH

1 eration are waived. The conference report shall be consid2 ered as read.

Calendar No. 119

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 324

[Report No. 107–353]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3338) making

appropriations for the Department of Defense forthe fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, andfor other purposes.

DECEMBER 20 (legislative day, DECEMBER 19), 2001

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 168 (Thursday, August 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 60248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18796]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: August 31, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
August 22, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
34 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2023-242, CP2023-245.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-18796 Filed 8-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6194
WENDELL SHANNON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS CORCORAN, Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA97-3967-S) Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: May 4, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Wendell Shannon, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Annabelle Louise Lisic, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Shannon v. Corcoran , No. CA-97-3967-S (D. Md. Feb. 2, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### George F. Eschbach, Respondent, v. Theodore M. Amsdell and another, Appellants.

—Order reversed, with teu dollars costs to abide event.
#### Mary Johnson, Appellant, v. William Ult and others, Respondents.

Appeal dismissed.
Merrimack,

June, 1894.

#### State *(ex rel. Thorndike & a.) v.*Collins & *a.*

A petition under P. S., c. 205, *s.*5, may be amended by substituting a legal voter for a petitioner who is not a legal voter.

Petition, by twenty-one persons alleged to be legal voters in Concord, for the abatement of a liquor nuisance in that city. Two of the petitioners were not such voters. The petition was amended by substituting two voters for them, subject to the defendants’ exception.

*William H. Sawyer*and *Burleigh Adams,*for the state.

*Albín Martin*and *Bingham Mitchell,*for the defendants.

Chase, J.

The statute required the petition to be signed by not less than twenty legal voters of Concord. P. S., c. 205, *s.*5. It purported to be so signed, and was therefore sufficient upon its face; but it turned out that only nineteen of the signers possessed the requisite qualification. Was the defect amendable ? There is nothing in the nature of this action *(State*v. *Saunders,*66 N. H. 39; *Rancour’s Petition,*66 N. H. 172) that excludes it from the operation of the general rule, authorizing the court to allow amendments to be made in civil actions by adding new parties or substituting new ones for original parties, if justice requires the change to be made. P. S., *c.*222, *ss.*7, 8, 11; *State*v. *Batcheller,*66 N. H. 145; *Annis*v. *Gleason,*56 N. H. 16; *Judge of Probate*v. *Jackson,*58 N. H. 458; *Boudreau*v. *Eastman,*59 N. H. 467; *Buckminster*v. *Wright,*59 N. H. 153; *Hazen*v. *Quimby,*61 N. H. 76; *Willoughby*v. *Holderness,*62 N. H. 661; *Fitch*v. *Nute,*62 N. H. 700; *Owen*v. *Weston,*63 N. H. 599, 603, 604; *Smith*v. Hadley, 64 N. H. 97. The requirement that there shall be twenty petitioners who are legal voters in the town *47where the alleged nuisance exists was designed to prevent frivolous and vexatious suits. So many persons of mature age, having an opportunity to learn whether a nuisance exists, by a residence in the vicinity for six mouths at least (P. S., *c.*31, *ss. 1,*8), are not likely to join in a petition unless there is reasonable cause for instituting the proceeding. As a guaranty of the necessity and good faith of the suit, the petition of such persons may well be regarded as equivalent to an information filed by the solicitor of the county. P. S., *c.*205, s. 5. The object of the requirement is not defeated by substituting a qualified person for one not qualified. The substitute will not become a party unless he approves of the proceeding. Moreover, in legal effect, he becomes a petitioner from the beginning of the action. *Whittier*v. *Varney,*10 N. H. 291, 302, 303.

Whether justice required that the amendment should be made is a question of fact that is not reviewable here. *Broadhurst*v. *Morgan,*66 N. H. 480.

*Exception overruled.*

Wallace, J,, did not sit: the others concurred.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

Board of Directors and Shareholders
Coachmen Industries, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No.  333-52378)  pertaining  to the  Retirement  Plan and Trust of  Coachmen
Industries, Inc., 2000 Omnibus Stock Incentive Program and Supplemental Deferred
Compensation Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-59251) pertaining to
the 1994 Omnibus Stock Incentive Program,  Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No.
2-64572) pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Coachmen  Industries,
Inc. and in the related  Prospectus of our report dated  January 29, 2004,  with
respect  to  the  consolidated  financial  statements  and  financial  statement
schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Coachmen Industries, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2003.


                                             /S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Grand Rapids, MI
March 12, 2004
#### Frederick C. Schmitthenner, Appellant, v. Gustav Dolf, Respondent, Impleaded, etc.

Order vacating sale and judgment in foreclosure affirmed, without costs. Opinion by Dykman, J.; Barnard, P. J., not sitting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

     This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from
     the financial  statements  for the year ended December 31, 1997 and is
     qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000022698
<NAME>                        COMSAT Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         5,757
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  162,356
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (14,735)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               318,249
<PP&E>                                         2,520,535
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,161,242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,894,775
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          296,646
<BONDS>                                        461,960
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       366,901
<OTHER-SE>                                     219,320
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,894,775
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               562,651
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  263,934
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               216,749
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             42,032
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                44,181
<INCOME-TAX>                                   15,613
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            28,568
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (89,068)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,946)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (64,446)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.29)





</TABLE>
---

---

Exhibit 23.7

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Forms S-8, (File No.
333-61895, File No. 333-55970) and Forms S-3, (File No. 333- 140968, File No. 333-140969
and, File No. 333-140974) of our report dated February 26, 2008, relating to the financial
statements of Hod Hasharon Sport Center Limited which appears in this Form 10-K of Ampal
 American Israel Corporation.

KPMG Somekh Chaikin
 Tel Aviv

March 3, 2009



---

---
Merrimack,

June, 18941.

#### Doherty *& a. v.*Cotter.

The sale of spirituous liquors,in this state in the original packages in which they were brought from another state is valid, in the absence of any act of congress relating thereto, notwithstanding the statute of this state prohibiting the sales.

A payment made on a general account and not applied to particular items is presumed to apply to the oldest items due, unless there is reason to infer a different intention.

Assumpsit, for spirituous liquors sold and delivered. Facts found by the court. The specification contained charges amounting to §577, and credits of §434. The action was brought to recover the balance of §143. The plaintiffs introduced evidence as to sales on August 21, September 8, and September 20, 1888, the charges aggregating §221. They offered no evidence as to the other items, except the fact that they had sold the defendant liquors prior to August 21, 1888. The defendant introduced no evidence.

The plaintiffs resided in Massachusetts, and the defendant at Concord, in this county. The liquors included in the charges of August 21 and September 20 were sold and delivered at Concord. The other package, was sold and delivered at Boston, Massachusetts. All the liquors were delivered to the defendant in the same unbroken packages in which they left Boston.

The defendant moved for a nonsuit, also for a verdict, on the ground that, the sale and delivery having been made at Concord, the plaintiffs were guilty of a violation of the statute, and were denied a remedy by our court; also, upon the ground that the credits were larger than the price of the goods sold on the foregoing dates. The defendant excepted to a denial of the motion, and to a verdict for the plaintiffs of $143, with interest from the date of the writ.

*Joseph S.*Matthews, for the plaintiff's.

*Albín ¿-*Martin, for the defendant.

Blodgett, J.

The questions arising upon the sale and delivery of the liquors were decided adversely to the defendant in *Durkee*v. *Moses,*67 N. H. 115; and the remaining question, as to the application of the credits on the plaintiffs’ specification, was likewise so decided in *Bancroft*v. *Holton,*59 N. H. 141.

*Exceptions overruled.*

Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
# U.S. and Israeli Navy Begin Exercise Intrinsic Defender

/ Published March 28, 2022
EILAT, ISRAEL, 
U.S. 5th Fleet and the Israeli Navy kicked off a 10-day maritime exercise March 27 that will take place in and off the coast of Israel.                 EILAT, Israel (March 27, 2022) Guided-missile destroyer USS Cole (DDG 67) sits pierside in Eilat, Israel, March 27, at the start of Intrinsic Defender, a bilateral exercise between U.S. and Israeli naval forces. Intrinsic Defender focuses on maritime security operations, explosive ordinance disposal, global health engagement and unmanned systems integration. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Anita Chebahtah)                            U.S. and Israeli Navy Begin Exercise Intrinsic Defender                            EILAT, Israel (March 27, 2022) Guided-missile destroyer USS Cole (DDG 67) sits pierside in Eilat, Israel, March 27, at the start of Intrinsic Defender, a bilateral exercise between U.S. and Israeli naval forces. Intrinsic Defender focuses on maritime security operations, explosive ordinance disposal, global health engagement and unmanned systems integration. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Anita Chebahtah)            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Petty Officer 1st Class Anita ChVIRIN: 220327-N-ZA692-0058BIntrinsic Defender is a bilateral exercise between U.S. and Israeli naval forces. The exercise focuses on maritime security operations, explosive ordnance disposal, health topics and unmanned systems integration.More than 300 U.S. personnel are participating, including a U.S. Navy explosive ordnance disposal dive team, U.S. Coast Guard maritime engagement team, and global health engagement team. U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Cole (DDG 67), dry cargo ship USNS Wally Schirra (T-AKE 8) and various unmanned vessels are also scheduled to participate in the exercise."USS Cole looks forward to partnering with the Israeli Navy during the exercise,” said Cmdr. Jim Welsch, Cole’s commanding officer. “Working with our partners allows us to strengthen our bonds and increase our interoperability. This exercise will allow us to fortify our continued partnership in the region."Cole has been operating in the U.S. 5th Fleet region since Jan. 4 in support of maritime security and stability.The U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations encompasses nearly 2.5 million square miles of water area and includes the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Red Sea, parts of the Indian Ocean and three critical choke points at the Strait of Hormuz, Suez Canal and Bab al-Mandeb.

#IntrinsicDefender22

The @US5thFleet and the Israeli Navy kicked off the 10-day maritime exercise #IntrinsicDefender22 March 27 that will take place off the coast of Israel. @IDF#StrongerTogetherhttps://t.co/HRDZCtRyBt
— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) March 28, 2022
3)) AERIAL 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations 

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

12 May 2016 

Application to Amend 

Section 333 Exemption No. 11193 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0872 

Petitioner: 3D Aerial Solutions, LLC, Bret Givens, PMP, President, 4725 Constitutional Court. 

Dayton, OH 45440, (937) 510-6836 [office], (937) 620-5359 [cell], bgivens@3daerial.com 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

By letter from the FAA dated 4 March 2015, an exemption was granted to 3DAerial for relief 

under Section 333. That letter was marked Section 333 Exemption No. 11193 Docket No. 

FAA-2014-0872. 3DAerial hereby requests that the exemption so granted be amended to now 

further include U AS applications in the following areas: 

• Aerial surveying, mapping and data collection 

• Remote sensing 

• Educational and research operations 

• Wildlife and forestry monitoring 

• Railroad and motor vehicle road inspection 

• Telecommunications iafrastructure inspection 

• Utility, Energy systems and electrical engineering inspections and asset management 

• Livestock management and accountability 

• Construction site inspections and monitoring 

• Oil and gas pipeline inspection/patrolling and oil-field inspection 

• Real estate and marketing 

• Aerial imagery evidence for property insurance claims 

• Structure Inspection 

Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Please contact us at any time if you 

require additional information or clarification. 

Sincerely, 

Bret R. Givens, President
Docket: EBSA-2010-0007 

Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options for Participants and Beneficiaries in 

Retirement Plans 

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0007-0001 

Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options 

Document: EBSA-2010-0007-DRAFT-0008 

Comment on FR Doc # N/A 

Submitter Information 

Name: Gloria J Cosentino 

Address: 

1881 Timber Lane 

Glendale Hts, IL, Iceland, 60139 

General Comment 

I thought government was worried about making these hugh companies even larger- "too big to 

fail". What do you think this new rule mandating the adding of annuities to retirement plans will 

do to companies like AIG who sell annutiies. I think the annuity companies paid a lot of money to 

someone's campaign to get him elected and now he needs to pay them back!! 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: February 17, 2010 

Received: February 03, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80a8bda9 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 2/17/2010
August 9,2010 

Office ofConsumer Infonnati()h and Insurance Oversight 

Department ofHealth and Human Services 

Attention: OCll0-9991-IFC 

P.O. Box 8016' . 

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 

Re: Interim Final Ru1e for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating 

toStatus as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Care Act 

As a consumer I wish to take this opportunity to fonnally 

~"~(;;~~~;r;o91~~~ghealthPl:and"gr~~~er~ ~,~~c~~,_~ l ,! I 

I believe the consumer protections included as part ofthe new health care law are vitally 1 

important and should be extended to as many people as possible. Accordingly, every 

effort should be made to increase the number ofindividuals covered by the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act (PP ACA) via the above regulations. The triggers or 

"coJ)ditions that would extend these protections to consumers under currently existing .f;" , 

'~andfathered" plans should not be weakened or reduced in any way. I specifically 

~~'pport the posit jon and.detailed comments offered by theAmerican Chiropractic 

~·\~ssociatiOI~w.ithres~cuo theimplementation ofthe . '. ation ..... 

tddf 

Thomas A. Welch 

,.
Report of Hans Hartenstein 

On North Dakota Department of Health’s April 10, 2010 

BACT Determination for Minnkota’s M.R. Young Station 

April 2010 

(CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT)