alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Carroll,

Dec., 1895.

#### Brookfield *v.*Sawyer & *a.*

The fraudulent grantee of a homestead cannot maintain trespass, *qu. cl.,*against a creditor of the grantor who has subsequently taken a part of it on execution.

Trespass, *guare clausum.*Trial by jury and verdict for the defendants. September 5, 1894, Joseph Pike conveyed his homestead premises to the defendant Sawyer, by a warranty deed in which his wife did not join. The conveyance was fraudulent and void as against the plaintiffs. The premises were in two> parcels, one containing about four acres having a dwelling house,, barn, and other buildings upon it, situate -on one side of a highway, and the other containing about twenty acres of pasturage and tillage land situate on the other side of the highway. Pike’s family resided upon the premises, and consisted of himself, wife, and a female servant.

June 6, 1895, the plaintiffs levied an execution, issued upon a judgment recovered by them against Pike, upon the twenty-acre parcel, the same being set off at $86.21. The four-acre parcel^ with the buildings upon it, was then of the value of $385. The officer who made the levy was not requested by Pike or his wife to set off a homestead for them, and did not set off one, nor make the .levy subject to their homestead right. No allusion to the homestead right was made in the return of the levy.'

If the levy was valid, the verdict should be set aside and judgment should be rendered in favor of the plaintiffs for damages in *407the sum of 815 and interest from October 22, 1895 ; otherwise, there should be judgment on the 'verdict.

*Worcester, Oafney f Snow*and *James A. TMgerly,*for the plaintiffs.

*Fred B. Osgood*and *Arthur L. Foote,*for the defendants.

Blodgett, J.

Limited to its facts, the case presents but the single inquiry whether the fraudulent grantee of a homestead can maintain trespass *(¡ware clausum.,*against a creditor of the grantor who has subsequently taken a part of it on execution. This inquiry is decisively answered by *Currier*v. *Sutherland,*54 N. H. 475 (approved more or less directly in *Tilton*v. *Sanborn,*59 N. H. 290, 291, and *Provencher*v. *Brooks,*64 N. H. 479, 481), in which it was held that a conveyance of property which is exempt from attachment or levy may be fraudulent and void as to creditors; that the right of homestead, being personal to the parties in whom it exists, is not assignable, and cannot be set up as a defence by a fraudulent grantee ; and that such grantee cannot recover possession against a creditor of the grantor who has taken the homestead on execution.

While the decision in *Currier*v. *Sutherland*is doubtless not in accord with the majority of decisions in other jurisdictions (Thomp. H. & Ex., *ss.*408-413; Bump Fr. Conv. (2d ed.) 242), it is nevertheless supported by a strong minority of them, as well as by its own “forcible reasoning” (Thomp. II. & Ex., *s.*417), against which, in our opiniou, no satisfactory objection has as yet been urged.

*Verdict set aside; judgment for the plaintiffs for*$15 *and interest.*

Chase, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
§ 299.201 Technical PTC system requirements. ( a ) The railroad shall comply with all applicable requirements under 49 U.S.C. 20157, including, but not limited to, the statutory requirement to fully implement an FRA-certified PTC system prior to commencing revenue service.
( b ) The railroad's PTC system shall be designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, over-speed derailments, incursions into established work zone limits, and movements of trainset through switches left in the wrong position, reliably and functionally, in accordance with § 236.1005(a) and (c) through (f) of this chapter.
( c ) The railroad is authorized to conduct field testing of its PTC system on its system, prior to obtaining PTC System Certification from FRA, in accordance with its system-wide qualification test plan under § 299.603. During any field testing of its uncertified PTC system and regression testing of its FRA-certified PTC system, FRA may oversee the railroad's testing, audit any applicable test plans and procedures, and impose additional testing conditions that FRA believes may be necessary for the safety of trainset operations.
( d ) The railroad is not exempted from compliance with any requirement of subparts A through G of 49 CFR part 236, or 49 CFR parts 233 and 235, unless the railroad's FRA-approved PTCSP provides for such an exemption.
( e ) ( 1 ) All materials filed in accordance with this subpart must be in the English language, or have been translated into English and attested as true and correct.
( 2 ) Each filing referenced in this subpart may include a request for full or partial confidentiality in accordance with § 209.11 of this chapter. If confidentiality is requested as to a portion of any applicable document, then in addition to the filing requirements under § 209.11 of this chapter, the person filing the document shall also file a copy of the original unredacted document, marked to indicate which portions are redacted in the document's confidential version without obscuring the original document's contents.
DOD Statement on Rocket Attack at Al Asad by Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby
 By Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby
  We can confirm that early this morning the air base at Al Asad in Iraq came under rocket attack. Preliminary indications are that approximately ten rockets were fired from points of origin east of the base. There are no current reports of U.S. servicemember injuries and all are accounted for. A U.S. civilian contractor suffered a cardiac episode while sheltering and sadly passed away shortly after. Iraqi security forces are on scene and investigating. We cannot attribute responsibility at this time, and we do not have a complete picture of the extent of the damage.  We stand by as needed to assist our Iraqi partners as they investigate. Al Asad’s Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar (C-RAM) missile defensive systems engaged in defense of our forces. Secretary Austin was briefed by his team and is closely monitoring the situation. We extend our deepest condolences to the loved ones of the individual who died.
#### George Mitchell, Respondent, v. Joseph Cornell, Appellant.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Barnard, P. J.
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 12:40 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RE; ZRIN: 1210-ZA 25, and RIN: 1210-AB 32

Dear Sirs:

I am writing to you in regard to rules that the U.S. Department of Labor is proposing..

These rules will substantially hurt my retirement income.

I am an 85 year old retiree that depends on Social Security and IRA distribution income. 

These proposed rules will create a hardship to me.I depend on my IRA investments and 

the opportunity to sell "covered calls" options to get enough investment returns to help 

with my annual required taxable distribution. 

My broker, Charles Schwab, Inc. has reviewed my IRA investment program and found it 

appropriate , and conservative.

They do not permit high risk transactions such as selling "put options" in any IRA 

account.

Please do not implement any rule that will be hurtful to my retirement income.

I am sure there are other retirees in the same circumstances.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

L.G.
Noble and EPA Meeting November 3, 2015 2 pm to 4 pm 

### 1. Introductions 2. Meeting Goals and Outcomes 3. Key Questions and Concerns 4. Key Issues/Questions • Effective Date • Technologicallnnovation • Recordkeeping 

### & Reporting • LDAR • Pneumatic pumps. • Storage Tanks • Modification Standard • "Fugitive Emissions Component • Liquids Unloading • 3rd Party Verification vs Self Certification • CTGS • Voluntary Program Proposal 5. Other discussion items • Comment deadlines • Related rules 6. Adjourn

# ------

**kM~** 

# \\(1.VI1bo'cL 

# l;r;L- 

# fu YY11)bV1 

# Jt\/v\ **~~**

**~~- LCJv'k.~** 

**~/U**

# Aw---r;;L> lit.. 

# )blc 

# F:\ 

# (h;Li 

# v~ **GltA~/PtJti ?(s:~**  

# A
**tu~** (J 

# ltDS<~
**By-\.)~ ~**  oo'(-e **~** 

# ~mOA.hDI\



# ~~ 

# erA **..t,._~**
**))~1 ~**  

### -z 

## t:. "'-lVI'--!:) 

# I rVvh 

# le **~rQ** r.c.. \

# CPft

# srAt=' ?/1 

# p\.!Of'le,: **~o6,d ~~~-**  f91\



# Mer~ **Deh'f~rtd.o** 

# -r;fi'\ 'Sui<t- 

# \ili\

# te-en.- -**~**P-1\ 

# VA.., **~\\'/\** 

# -**~A\**
**t::n~~~ ~Mhk-_s**  

# - EcR
# Den Europæiske Unions C 152/9. j

| | ISSN 1725-2393 |
| --- | --- |
| Den Europæiske Unions
  Tidende | C 152 |
| | |
| Dansk udgave | Meddelelser og oplysninger | 47. årgang9. juni 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2393

Den Europæiske Unions

Tidende

C 152

Dansk udgave

Meddelelser og oplysninger

47. årgang9. juni 2004

---

| Informationsnummer | Indhold | Side |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Meddelelser |
| | Kommissionen |
| 2004/C 152/1 | Euroens vekselkurs | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Indhold

Side

I   Meddelelser

Kommissionen

2004/C 152/1

Euroens vekselkurs

1

| DA | |
| --- | --- |

DA

---

I Meddelelser

Kommissionen

| 9.6.2004 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | C 152/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2004

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

C 152/1

---

Euroens vekselkurs (1)

8. juni 2004

(2004/C 152/01)

1 euro=

| | Valuta | Kurs |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | amerikanske dollar | 1,2294 |
| JPY | japanske yen | 135,08 |
| DKK | danske kroner | 7,4349 |
| GBP | pund sterling | 0,66840 |
| SEK | svenske kroner | 9,1040 |
| CHF | schweiziske franc | 1,5229 |
| ISK | islandske kroner | 87,36 |
| NOK | norske kroner | 8,1885 |
| BGN | bulgarske lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | cypriotiske pund | 0,58300 |
| CZK | tjekkiske koruna | 31,243 |
| EEK | estiske kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | ungarske forint | 251,15 |
| LTL | litauiske litas | 3,4527 |
| LVL | lettiske lats | 0,6623 |
| MTL | maltesiske lira | 0,4263 |
| PLN | polske zloty | 4,5957 |
| ROL | rumænske leu | 40 758 |
| SIT | slovenske tolar | 239,1500 |
| SKK | slovakiske koruna | 39,870 |
| TRL | tyrkiske lira | 1 811 841 |
| AUD | australske dollar | 1,7507 |
| CAD | canadiske dollar | 1,6520 |
| HKD | hongkongske dollar | 9,5838 |
| NZD | newzealandske dollar | 1,9568 |
| SGD | singaporeanske dollar | 2,0990 |
| KRW | sydkoreanske won | 1 423,46 |
| ZAR | sydafrikanske rand | 8,0262 |

Valuta

Kurs

USD

amerikanske dollar

1,2294

JPY

japanske yen

135,08

DKK

danske kroner

7,4349

GBP

pund sterling

0,66840

SEK

svenske kroner

9,1040

CHF

schweiziske franc

1,5229

ISK

islandske kroner

87,36

NOK

norske kroner

8,1885

BGN

bulgarske lev

1,9558

CYP

cypriotiske pund

0,58300

CZK

tjekkiske koruna

31,243

EEK

estiske kroon

15,6466

HUF

ungarske forint

251,15

LTL

litauiske litas

3,4527

LVL

lettiske lats

0,6623

MTL

maltesiske lira

0,4263

PLN

polske zloty

4,5957

ROL

rumænske leu

40 758

SIT

slovenske tolar

239,1500

SKK

slovakiske koruna

39,870

TRL

tyrkiske lira

1 811 841

AUD

australske dollar

1,7507

CAD

canadiske dollar

1,6520

HKD

hongkongske dollar

9,5838

NZD

newzealandske dollar

1,9568

SGD

singaporeanske dollar

2,0990

KRW

sydkoreanske won

1 423,46

ZAR

sydafrikanske rand

8,0262

---

(1)

Kilde: Referencekurs offentliggjort af Den Europæiske Centralbank.

---
# 332 AEW Synchronizes Alert Responses 

/ Published Sept. 13, 2021

**332ND AIR EXPEDITIONARY WING –** Multiple agencies from the 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing conduct an exercise in which they respond to an alert at the sight of an unmanned aerial system August 27, 2021, in an undisclosed location somewhere in Southwest Asia.

The exercise allowed Airmen from the 332nd Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron and 332nd Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron (Fire Department and Explosive Ordnance Disposal) to strengthen and refine defense against UAS platforms.

“The response for the exercise enables cross-function communication between agencies so that everyone witnesses each other’s actions,” said Staff Sgt. Martin Garland, 332nd Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron noncommissioned officer in charge of counter small unmanned aerial systems. “In doing this, it produces a team that can effectively arrive to an incident with knowledge of what information is relevant for a safe solution to an unsafe scene.”

As soon as the counter-small Unmanned Aerial Systems, a section within Security Forces, confirms a threat, all responding agencies are notified to include SFS, FD, and EOD.

“Once the threat has been confirmed hostile, operators take appropriate action in defeating the drone by using all of the sensors available to work the kill chain –detect, track, identify and defeat,” explained Garland.

EOD then takes the lead for further actions.

Our response is triggered upon the notification from Command post that the c-sUAS detachment has engaged with a UAS or its been discovered, explained Master Sgt. Warren Long, 332nd Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron explosive ordnance disposal flight chief.

EOD brings their reconnaissance equipment, an explosive detection robot helps identify and eliminate the threat. They run their own simulations within the exercise to introduce new approaches and work through potential outcomes for everyone to see.

“PowerPoints and single-unit training can only get you so far, and simulating other agencies doesn’t prepare you for the real thing,” said Long.

Units typically have their own exercises and simulations to hone their skills in case of a real-world emergency, but it is the inclusion of all responding agencies in a single exercise which provides a chance to see how every piece to the puzzle fits together.

With each unit having its own ops tempo and unique responsibilities outside of this exercise, timing these events is difficult but necessary, said Long.

With sUAS threats increasing across the AOR, 332nd AEW Airmen continue training to improve vigilance as they become a stronger joint force.  

“Each unit now has a better understanding of the capabilities of the other responding units,” said Long. “With training, each unit can now rely on firsthand knowledge of events that transpired during this exercise.”
#### CLARENCE EDWARD STEWART, PLAINTIFF, v. HARRY M. SCHACHTER AND EDWARD M. SCHACHTER, DEFENDANTS.

Decided December 8, 1933.

For the plaintiff, *Dippel, Davis •& Stewart.*

For the defendants, *Samuel Moshowitz.*

Ackerson, S. C. C.

This motion is to strike out the answer of the defendants interposed in an action upon a bond made by them to the plaintiff, and accompanying a mortgage which has been foreclosed resulting in a deficiency, to recover which this action is brought.

The sufficiency of the answer in question depends upon the constitutionality (so far as it affects the bond in question) of chapter 82 *(Pamph. L.*1933), approved March 29th, 1933, which in effect permits the question of “fair market value” of the premises foreclosed to be raised in an action at law on the bond for a deficiency resulting from the foreclosure sale, notwithstanding the order of the Court of Chancery confirming such sale.

Since the bond in question was executed prior to the time when the above mentioned act took effect, this motion is controlled by the recent decision of our Court of Errors and Appeals in the case of *Vanderbilt*v. *Brunton Piano Co. et al.,*111 *N. J. L.*596, which held that the above mentioned act, in so far as it permits the question of “fair market value” of the mortgaged premises to be raised in an action on the accompanying bond for a deficiency is unconstitutional so far as pre-existing contracts are concerned.

The plaintiff’s motion must, therefore, be granted and the defendant’s answer will be stricken out as sham in part and frivolous in part, and an order may be presented in accordance with the conclusion thus reached.
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 11-10193 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. THURMAN J. KITCHEN, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court f or the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:10-CR-159-1
Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public D efender appointed to represent Thurman J

. Kitchen has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. C alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United S tates v . F lores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Kitchen has not filed a response. We h ave reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevan t p ortions of the record reflected therein. We concur with
c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave t o withdraw is GRANTED, U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 1, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 11-10193 Document: 00512161471 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2013No. 11-10193

counsel is excused from further responsibilities he r e i n, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-10193 Document: 00512161471 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2013
#### WILLIAM PALANSKY, PROSECUTOR, v. MAX REICH AND JAMES H. WHITE, DEFENDANTS.

Submitted October 14, 1932

Decided February 25, 1933.

*107Before Justices Bodine and Donges.

Por the prosecutor, *Walter V. Schwartz.*

Por the respondents, Ghandless, *Weller <& Selser.*

Per Curiam.

This writ of *certiorari*brings up for review an order of the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the county of Bergen vacating a judgment previously entered by default in favor of the plaintiff. The ground of the order was that the state of demand set out no cause of action of which the court had jurisdiction.

1. The first point is that the court had no power to make the order more than thirty days after the judgment was entered because section 17 of the act limits the power to grant a new trial to that period unless upon the ground of newly discovered evidence. The court did not order a new trial but vacated the judgment. In *Anderson*v. *Independent Order of*Foresters, 98 *N. J. L.*648; 126 *Atl. Rep.*631, Mr. Justice Bergen, sitting alone, reviewing a similar action of a District Court, held that that court had power to vacate a judgment where there was no j urisdiction over the person of the defendant. His reasoning is sound and applies to a case where the defect is lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter.

2. The second point is that there was no legal proof offered which supports the order. It was not a matter which was susceptible of proof, since the court determined a lack of jurisdiction appeared on the face of the state of demand.

3. That the order is void because it transcends the scope of the rule to show cause. The rule called upon plaintiff to show cause why the default judgment should not be reopened. The order vacates the judgment. No harm was *108suffered by plaintiff in this. The only question to be considered on the return of the rule, as indicated by defendant’s affidavit, served with the rule, was the jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter. It was this question that the plaintiff was called upon to meet by the rule and the order made was based on the determination of that question.

4. That the court bad jurisdiction-of plaintiff’s claim. The first paragraph of the state of demand alleges a partnership agreement. The second that plaintiff devoted his time to the business at an inadequate compensation. The third that plaintiff’s efforts caused the business to prosper. The fourth that on November 15th, 1931, defendant, with intent to defraud, ejected plaintiff from the premises without compensating for the time spent in the running of the business. Five hundred dollars damages are claimed. The action is entitled “on contract.” It seems that this is a claim for a share of the profits in accordance with the partnership agreement. Plaintiff’s measure of damages would certainly be governed by the terms of the partnership agreement, because he alleges no other contract. He must, if it be for accounting, first seek an accounting in equity. This question, however, is not before us in the instant case. After final judgment, plaintiff may appeal, if aggrieved thereby.

The writ is discharged, with costs.
Merrimack,)

June 4,1912.

#### Perham *v.*Lane.

Bill in Equity, to foreclose a mortgage. The defendant filed an answer denying the execution of the conveyance and also alleging that if she did it was to secure the payment of her husband's debt. Upon the trial the plaintiff produced evidence showing that the mortgage was given by the defendant to secure the purchase price of the property mortgaged, and that there was a default both as to interest and principal. The defendant's motion for a nonsuit was denied, and she excepted. A previous bill had been filed on account of a default of an interest payment. The amount then due, with the costs, was paid, but the bill had not been dismissed when the present one was filed. The defendant moved that this bill be dismissed because of the pendency of the prior one. The motion was denied, and she excepted. No evidence was introduced by the defendant. A decree for the plaintiff was ordered, and the defendant filed a bill of exceptions which was allowed by *Pike,*«L, at the April term, 1911, of the superior court.

*Remide & Jackson,*for the plaintiff.

*Hugh Moore,*for the defendant.

Peaslee, J.

The defendant's counsel has not furnished a brief, and no debatable question has been found in the case. The evidence, instead of being conclusive in favor of the defendant, was conclusive against her. *State*v. *Harrington,*69 N. H. 496. The *581former bill was for an earlier default and not for those relied upon here. In such a case the doctrine that a second suit must abate has no application.

*Exceptions overruled.*

All concurred.