alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William C. Stewart et al., appellants, v. Consolidated School District, appellee.

Filed February 23, 1921.

No. 21247.

Schools and. School Districts: Injunction: Proof. When, in an action against a school district to enjoin the removal of school property, plaintiif fails to sustain the allegations of his petition that “he is a resident, elector, and taxpayer” of the district, which is put in issue hy a general denial, the writ will be denied.

Appeal from the district court for Deuel county: Hanson M. Grimes, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*McKillip & Barth,*for appellants.

*686*'Radclife & Tetoell*and *EalUgan, Beatty $ EalUgan, contra.*

Morrissey, C. J.

This action was brought to enjoin the officers of defendant school district from removing the schoolhouse and other school property of what was formerly school district No. 35 of Cheyenne and Deuel counties and appropriating it to the use of defendant district. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.

On and prior to May 14, 1919, school district No. 35 of Cheyenne and Deuel counties was comprised of territory in these counties; school district No. 6 of Deuel and Gar-, den counties was comprised of territory lying within these two counties; and school district No 14 of Garden county lay wholly within that county. The three districts were contiguous. May 14, 1919, the board of trustees of each of the districts mentioned met in joint conference and agreed to submit a proposition to the voters of each district for the consolidation of the three districts. Notices were posted in each of the districts, and May 27, 1919, an election was held in each district and a majority of the votes cast in each district was in favor of consolidation. The county superintendent of each county having territory Avithin the boundaries of the new district was notified of the result of the elections held, and each took steps to perfect an' organization of the new district under chapter 121, Laws 1915. An election was held June 9, 1919, and a board of trustees elected for the neAV district. Appellants’ petition alleges that appellants are residents, electors, and taxpayers of the original school district No. 35, but the proof does not sustain these allegations. In *Hess v. Dodge,*82 Neb. 35, it was held, in an action very similar to the one at bar, that the allegations just mentioned are material and necessary, and that Avithout them a petition is demurrable. Being necessary and material to the petition, it follows that the allegations must be proved upon the trial when put in issue by the answer, as Avas done in the instant case. Proof being lacking on these material *687allegations of the petition, we must decline to examine further into the record, and the judgment is

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57621-57622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22913]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, September 25, 2013, 10:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the public

Matters To Be Considered

    Briefing Matter: Voluntary Recall Notice--Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.

[[Page 57622]]

    A live Web cast of the Meeting can be viewed at www.cpsc.gov/live.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: September 17, 2013.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-22913 Filed 9-17-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
CUISINE SOLUTIONS, INC.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements,
(Nos. 33-60614 and 33-60616) on Form S-8 of Cuisine Solutions, Inc. of our
report dated September 4, 1998, relating to the consolidated statements of
operations, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows of Cuisine
Solutions, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended June 27, 1998, before the
restatement of the fiscal year 2000 pooling of interests described in Note 2 to
the consolidated financial statements (the Restatement), and related Financial
Statement Schedule, before the Restatement, which report appears in the June
24, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of Cuisine Solutions, Inc




                                                     KPMG LLP



Washington, D.C.
October 3, 2000










38
From: marvelus5@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:15:40 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Marv Williams

Plano, TX 75094
From: Terri Spilde

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Sunday, August 07, 2011 2:19:34 AM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Terri Spilde
San Antonio, Texas
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.II


                           SPECIALITY WARRANTY DEED

STATE OF TEXAS    (S)
                  (S)               KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
                  (S)
COUNTY OF DALLAS  (S)


     THAT, COMPUCOM SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Grantor"), for
and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) cash in hand paid by
DELAWARE COMP LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of
Delaware (the "Grantee"), whose mailing address is c/o W.P. Carey & Co., Inc.,
50 Rockefeller Plaza, 2nd Floor, New York, New York 10020 and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged by Grantor, has GRANTED, BARGAINED, SOLD, and CONVEYED, and by
these presents does GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL, and CONVEY unto Grantee, the real
property more particularly described on Exhibit  A attached hereto and
                                        -----------
incorporated herein for all purposes, together with all fixtures and
improvements located thereon and appurtenances appertaining thereto, including,
but not limited to, all of Grantor's right, title and interest in and to (i) all
strips and gores between the land and abutting properties, (ii) any land in the
bed of any street, road or avenue, (iii) roads, rights of way and easements, and
(iv) mineral interests of any kind or character (the "Property").

     This conveyance is made by Grantor and accepted by Grantee subject only to
those certain title exceptions set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a
                                            ---------
part hereof for all purposes, but only to the extent that such exceptions are
valid, existing, and in fact, affect the Property (the "Permitted Exceptions").

     TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Property together with, all and singular, the
rights and appurtenances thereto in anywise belonging, unto Grantee and
Grantee's successors and assigns forever, and subject to the Permitted
Exceptions, Grantor does hereby bind Grantor and Grantor's successors and
assigns to warrant and forever defend all and singular the Property unto the
Grantee and Grantee's successors and assigns against every person whomsoever
lawfully claiming or to claim the same, or any part thereof, by, through or
under Grantor, but not otherwise.

     Executed on the date of the notary certification below to be effective as
of March 31, 1999.

                                          GRANTOR:

                                          COMPUCOM SYSTEMS, INC.


                                          By: /s/ Daniel L. Celoni
                                              -----------------------------
                                              Daniel L. Celoni
                                              Vice President, Finance/Treasurer
TY  - RPRT
A3  - U. S. Govt. Print. Off.,
CY  - 
C6  - 
ET  - -
LA  - ENGLISH
M3  - Report
SN  - 1052J
SP  - 
T2  - Bulletin
VL  - 
AU  - Keller, George Vernon
TI  - Electrical properties of sandstones of the Morrison formation
PY  - 1959
DO  - 
DB  - USGS Publications Warehouse
UR  - http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/b1052J
ER  -
r>o

January 20th 2015 .,

Honorable Keith Hottle ro ^~F

Clerk. 4th Court of Appeals "^ >~£;{U

Cadena-Reeves Justice Center -^C^ =z ~;

300 Dolorosa Street. Rm. 3200 ■■ sSP"- ,.•.::

San Antonio. Texas 78205-3037 /^ -;:

Re: State of Texas v- Jessie Gutierrez; Trial Court No. 2008CR6341

Court of Appeals No- 40-12-00349-CR

Dear Mr. Hottle.

would like to know if it would be possible for me to purchase thru your

Office the Clerk's Record and the Reporter's Record in the above Styled and

Numbered Cause. have been made aware that this miqht be possible.

Further. would like to know why did not receive from this Honorable

Court the Mandate in the above Styled and Numbered Cause. have received no

acknowledqement that my Petition For Descetionary Review was received, sent to

the Court of Criminal Appeals- or that it has been ruled upon.

Mr- Hottle if you could let me know about the purchasinq of the Appellate

Record of the case, and when. "IF" my PDR has been ruled on. would like to

know about the Mandate as well. would really appreciate it if you could help

me with these matters.

Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter.

Sincerely.

Jessie Gutierrez. TDCJ-CID #1791007

William G. McConnell Unit

3001 South Bnily Drive

Beeville. Texas 78102
**EXHIBIT      32**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

|   | (1) | The                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended                June                30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Sections                13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.                78m(a) or                78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| August                  4, 2006   |   | /s/                  Phillip E. Becker                             |
|-----------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date                              |   | Phillip                  E. Becker                                 |
|                              |   | President                  and Chief Executive Officer             |
|                              |   |                                                               |
|                              |   |                                                               |
|                              |   |                                                               |
| August                    4, 2006 |   | /s/                  H. Stewart Fitz Gibbon III                    |
| Date                              |   | H.                  Stewart Fitz Gibbon III                        |
|                              |   | Senior                  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                              |   |                                                               |
-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/13/2010 08:49PM -----

To: Gary McAlister/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA From: Thomas McGrath <tmcgrath.mea@gmail.com> Date: 05/13/2010 05:10PM cc: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lisa Beal <lbeal@ingaa.org>, Matt Todd <ToddM@api.org>, "Jeffrey A. Panek" <japanek@ameritech.net>, Jim McCarthy <jamesmccarthy@comcast.net> Subject: EPA Method 323 and EPA Method 320 Formadehyde Measurements Comparison: 1 of 3

Gary – per your request, the attached report provides the results of side-by-side formaldehyde measurements by Proposed EPA Method 323 and EPA Method 320 (extractive FTIR). The report was prepared by Innovative Environmental Solutions and the project was sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA).

In summary, a total of five test series (3 or 4 test runs per series) wereconducted on rich-burn and leanburn gas-fired reciprocating engines. The Method 323 measurements were higher than the Method 320 measurements for all of the test series with the average difference ranging from 12 to 47 percent. For these tests, all of the Method 320 QA spike recoveries were less than 100% suggesting a low bias to the measurements. When the Method 320 measurements are adjusted for the QA spike recoveries, there is very good agreement with the Method 323 measurements with the average difference ranging from -4 to 8 percent, well within the uncertainties of these test methods. These data suggest that a low bias in the Method 320 measurements, indicated by the low spike recoveries, contributed to the difference between the Method 323 and Method 320 measurements for this test program.

Based on accepted statistical evaluations to validate method performance, the results demonstrate acceptable performance for Method 323 and support the conclusion that Method 323 should be included in the RICE NESHAP (40 CFR 63, Subpart ZZZZ) as an approved test method for formaldehyde measurement. In addition, anomalous Method 323 results reported by EPA in the March 2009 proposed RICE NESHAP amendments have been investigated and determined to be a result of testing errors (i.e., human error). Therefore, Method 323 should be accepted for formaldehyde measurement from gas-fired reciprocating engines and promulgated as an accepted EPA test method when the final rule that amends 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ is published, which is planned for late summer or fall 2010.

Please note that, because of the size of the files, some report attachments will be sent separately.

Please call me if you have any questions or would like additional information.

Thank you –

Tom

-- Thomas McGrath Innovative Environmental Solutions 610 California Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 tmcgrath.mea@gmail.com 714.315.4040
Exhibit 4.27

 

THE SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
  TO 
 THE TRADEMARK LICENSE AGREEMENT

 

This Supplement is entered into by and among:

 

Licensor:                                              Phoenix Satellite Television Trademark Limited

 

Licensee:                                             Beijing Tianying Jiuzhou Network Technology Co., Ltd. 
  
 Yifeng Lianhe (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.

 

WHEREAS:

 

1.     The Licensor and the Licensee entered into the Trademark License Agreement dated November 24, 2009 (the “Agreement”);

 

2.     The Licensor and the Licensee entered into the Confirmation Letter of the Trademark License Agreement, dated April 12, 2011, to extend the term of the Agreement to March 27, 2016 (“Confirmation Letter”).

 

NOW THEREFORE, in the principle of equality and mutual benefits, the Parties agree as follows, through friendly negotiation:

 

1.                                      Term of the Agreement

 

The Licensor and the Licensee agree to extend the term of the Agreement and the Confirmation Letter to May 27, 2016.

 

2.                                      Anything not provided in this Supplement, shall be governed by the Agreement and the Confirmation Letter.

 

3.                                      This Supplemental Agreement is an integral part of the Agreement and the Confirmation Letter, and shall have equal legal effect.

 

4.                                      This Supplement Agreement shall be made in triplicate, and shall become effective once signed by and affixed with the corporate seal of each Party.

 











 

[Signature Page]

 

Licensor: Phoenix Satellite Television Trademark Limited

 

Authorized Representative: (Signature) (Seal)
 Date: March 24, 2016

 

 

Licensee:
 Beijing Tianying Jiuzhou Network Technology Co., Ltd.

 

Authorized Representative: 
 Date:

 

 

Yifeng Lianhe (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.

 

Authorized Representative: 
 Date:

 











 

[Signature Page]

 

Licensor: Phoenix Satellite Television Trademark Limited

 

Authorized Representative: 
 Date:

 

 

Licensee:
 Beijing Tianying Jiuzhou Network Technology Co., Ltd.

 

Authorized Representative: (Signature) (Seal)
 Date: March 24, 2016

 

 

Yifeng Lianhe (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.

 

Authorized Representative: (Signature) (Seal)
 Date: March 24, 2016
* The Honorable Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 06a0256n.06

Filed: April 12, 2006

Case No. 05-5130 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF v. ) TENNESSEE, AT MEMPHIS ) ) STEVEN EUBANKS, ) ) Defendant-Appellant.)

BEFORE: RYAN and COLE, Circuit J udges; and SARGUS, District Judge. *

SARGUS, District Judge. Steven Eubanks pleaded guilty to attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; possession of equipment, chemicals, products, and materials which may be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6); and possession of pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c). The relevant Sentencing Guidelines range was 46 to 57 months, and the district court sentenced Eubanks to a term of 57 months’ imprisonment.The court sentenced Eubanks on the assumption that the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, as that term was used in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220, 233 (2005). The sentencing took place before Booker was decided and the district judge did not announce an alternative sentence as suggested by this court in United States v. Koch , 383 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2004) ( en banc ), vacated by 125 S. Ct. 1944 (2005). We held in United States v. Barnett , 398 F.3d 516, 528 (6th Cir. 2005), that there is a presumption of prejudice when a defendant was sentenced under the mandatory Guidelines, but that the presumption can be rebutted by “clear and specific evidence that the district court would not have, in any event, sentenced the defendant to a lower sentence under an advisory Guidelines regime.” United States v. Webb , 403 F.3d 373, 382 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Barnett , 398 F.3d at 529), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1110 (2006). We find that the court’s imposition of a sentence at the top of the Guidelines range is not, standing alone, “clear and specific evidence” that Eubanks would not have received a lower sentence under an advisory Guidelines regime. Based upon the foregoing, Eubanks’s sentence is VACATEDand his case is REMANDED for resentencing under Booker

.