alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEMPORARY REVISION ALI−0472The contents of this Temporary Revision have been approved by the Chief, Engineering (or designate), National Aircraft Cerification Branch, Transport Canada Civil AviationDate February 27, 2014Signed Rene KnoerrFILING INSTRUCTIONS:Insert this Temporary Revision (TR) ALI−0470 facing Page 1, in Section 1−32 of the Maintenance RequirementsManual (MRM) Part 2.Record this Temporary Revision number and the date inserted on the yellow RECORD OF TEMPORARY REVISIONSsheet at the front of the Manual.Keep this Temporary Revision until the normal revision service puts this information into the MaintenanceRequirements Manual or the TR is cancelled.DESCRIPTION:This Temporary Revision is issued to introduce TASK NUMBER 32−01−00−101−A.FAIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONSCSP B−053 − Maintenance Requirements Manual − Part 2EFFECTIVITY: Model CL−600−2C10Model CL−600−2D15Model CL−600−2D24Model CL−600−2E251−32TR ALI−0472Page 1 of 2Feb 27/2014CERTIFICATION MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS32 − LANDING GEARALI TASKNUMBERCONFLTRMODELEFFECTIVITYDESCRIPTIONINTERVALTASKTYPECMRCATEGORY(*) OR (**)32−01−00−1011000 OPERATIONAL CHECK OF THE MLG AND NLG AES EMAAND RELEASE MECHANISM (CRJ1000): Verify properoperation of the MLG and NLG EMA and associated links andattachments for the Landing Gear Alternate Extension System(AES).NOTE: Phase−In: Do the initial operational check as follows:1. For aircraft with less than 540 Flight Hours (FH), accomplishbefore reaching 1200 FH.2. For aircraft with 540 FH or more, accomplish within 660 FHof TR ALI−0472 Issue Date (02/26/2014).OPC1200FH(**)FAIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONSCSP B−053 − Maintenance Requirements Manual − Part 2EFFECTIVITY: Model CL−600−2C10Model CL−600−2D15Model CL−600−2D24Model CL−600−2E251−32TR ALI−0472Page 2 of 2Feb 27/2014
297

3960000
35°45'N

39 50000

39 wrnes

35°30'N

3930000

39 ten

394 0000

66°15'E

66°30°E

66°45'E

——<_—<=<=<= ——ee = ke = =

-_=— -——=<—=—

Road

C= Stream, mostly intermittent 4
- 0 City, town, or village 2
—-- Province boundary

4 Peak

EXPLANATION J

_
' .
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129582 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129582 

 COA: 260702 

Kent CC: 90-052942-FC 

CURTIS LEWIS JONES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 14, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d1219 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 27, 2005 

Clerk
No. 46163.

#### Protest 59919-K of American Mdse. Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallingeb, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Woolworth*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 221, C. A. D. 20) the protest was sustained.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 5714] 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “The World of 1607”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Jamestown Settlement, Williamsburg, Virginia, from on or about April 10, 2007, until on or about July 20, 2007, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. 

Dated: February 28, 2007. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. E7-4047 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S

N O . P D - 0 4 7 4 - 1 9

J A M E S R A Y P E N D E R G R A F T , A p p e l l a n t

v . T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S O R D E R R E G A R D I N G R E P R E S E N T A T I O N

S M I T H C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m . O R D E R
Appellant was convicted of ag g rava ted assault in cause n u m b er 007-1264-17 in the 7th District Court of Smit h County

. Appellant was sentenc ed to c onfinement for 35 y ear s. The court of appea ls aff

irmed the judgme nt of the trial court. Penderg raf t v. State, No.12-18-00091- CR (Tex. App. —Ty ler, delivere d April 17, 2019). The Appellant’s Pro Se petition f or discretionar

y revie w was gra nted by this Court on October 23, 2019. Appellant is entitled to repr esenta t i o n b ef o re t his Court at t his time. See Article 1.051(a) (d)( 2), V.A.C.C .P. Ap p ellant i s without repr esenta tion inthis Court. Acc ording ly , the trial court is order ed to deter mine if Appellant is curr ently repr esente d by counsel, and if so, to inform t h i s court who repr esents Appellant. I f Appellant is not curr ently repr esente d by counsel and desires c ounsel, the trial cour t must first determine whether Appellant is indige nt. I f the trial court finds Appellant is indige nt, that court shall appoin t an at t o rn ey to repr esent Appel l an t b efor e this court in reg ard to PDR No. PD-0474-19, in acc ord with the provisions of Articles 1.051 a nd 26.04, V.A.C.C.P. Any hear ing c onducted pursuant to this order shall be held within 30 day s of the date of this order

. The trial court' s order appointing counsel, any finding s of fac t, aff

idavits, or transcr iption of the court repor ter 's n o t es and any other supplementation of the rec ord shall be returne d to this court within 45 day s of the date of this order

. I T I S SO ORDERED THI S THE 23 DAY OF OCTOB ER, 2019. R D DO NOT PUBL I SH
Case 2:04-cv-01753-FCD-CMK Document 15 Filed 02/23/06 Page 1 of 4Case 2:04-cv-01753-FCD-CMK Document 15 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 4Case 2:04-cv-01753-FCD-CMK Document 15 Filed 02/23/06 Page 3 of 4Case 2:04-cv-01753-FCD-CMK Document 15 Filed 02/23/06 Page 4 of 4
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Bumgardner and Kelsey 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

YAW AMOAKO FRIMPONG 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 BY 

v. Record No. 1904-03-4 JUDGE D. ARTHUR KELSEY 

 NOVEMBER 9, 2004 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY 

Rossie D. Alston, Jr., Judge 

 Joseph W. Kaestner (J. Paul Walla; Kaestner & Associates, P.C., on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Richard B. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Jerry W. 

Kilgore, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

 A jury found Yaw Amoako Frimpong guilty of first-degree murder. On appeal, Frimpong 

claims his short-form indictment ⎯ patterned after the language of Code § 19.2-221 ⎯ charged 

him with second-degree, but not first-degree, murder. Because the trial court erroneously treated 

the indictment as a first-degree murder charge, Frimpong argues, the court violated his due process 

rights and prejudiced his right to plead guilty to second-degree murder. 

 Frimpong concedes that our recent decision in Walshaw v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 

___, 2004 Va. App. LEXIS 483, at *13 (2004), holds that the statutory short-form indictment 

“clearly charged first-degree murder.” Walshaw also held that this indictment, used for over a 

century in Virginia, does not violate due process principles. Id. at *10-18. It follows that 

Walshaw undermines Frimpong’s guilty-plea argument, as no defendant has a right to plead 

 

*

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

guilty to a lesser-included offense. See generally Code § 19.2-254 (providing that a trial court 
 - 2 - 

“may refuse to accept a plea of guilty to any lesser offense included in the charge”); Graham v. 

Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 133, 137, 397 S.E.2d 270, 272 (1990). 

 Frimpong claims Walshaw was wrongly decided. Under our interpanel accord doctrine, 

however, we have no authority to overrule a decision of another panel of this Court. “The 

decision of one panel ‘becomes a predicate for application of the doctrine of stare decisis’ and 

cannot be overruled except by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by the Virginia Supreme 

Court.” Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Reed, 40 Va. App. 69, 73, 577 S.E.2d 538, 540 (2003) (citation 

omitted). “This principle applies not merely to the literal holding of the case, but also to its ratio 

decidendi — the essential rationale in the case that determines the judgment.” Id. at 73-74, 577 

S.E.2d at 540; see also Congdon v. Congdon, 40 Va. App. 255, 265, 578 S.E.2d 833, 838 (2003). 

 Because Walshaw governs this case, we reject Frimpong’s challenge to the statutory 

short-form indictment and affirm his conviction for first-degree murder. 

 Affirmed.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10(a)
TO: LEE BANKS 
PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION  
RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT (RSU-002S)
The Human Resources and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the "Committee") of Parker-Hannifin Corporation (the "Company") has awarded to you the following number of Restricted Stock Units under the Amended and Restated Parker-Hannifin Corporation 2009 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan") and subject to the Parker-Hannifin Corporation Restricted Stock Unit Terms and Conditions (RSU-002S) (the "Terms and Conditions"): 
	
		
	Grant Date
	Number of RSUs

	August 17, 2016
	14,194




Vesting Date.   Except as otherwise provided in the Terms and Conditions, the Restricted Stock Units will vest in full on the fifth (5th) anniversary of the Grant Date, provided you remain an active full-time employee of the Company throughout the vesting period.   The scheduled vesting date and amount of this award are viewable by clicking on the Grant Date hyperlink on your Restricted Stock Unit Grant Information page on the Stock Incentive Plan Administrator's web site.
Payment Dates.  The Restricted Stock Units will be paid to you in shares of Parker common stock on the vesting date identified above, except as otherwise provided in the Terms and Conditions.
Your Action Items.  Please take the following actions:
•  Before you accept your grant, click on the links below to review the Terms and Conditions and the Plan, which govern your award. 
•  Accept the Terms and Conditions and execute this Award Agreement by clicking on the "Accept" button below.   If you do not accept this Award Agreement prior to the vesting date, your award will be forfeited, except in the event of your permanent disability or death prior to the vesting date (as more fully set forth in the Terms and Conditions).
•  Inform the Company of any change in address or contact information, as necessary. Refer to the section of the Terms and Conditions titled "Notification of Change in Personal Data" for instructions on how to provide notification to the Company. 
Restricted Stock Unit Terms and Conditions (RSU-002S-JAC) 
Amended and Restated 2009 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan
To view the most recent Annual Report, please click here 
To view the most recent Proxy Statement, please click here 
To view the Plan Summary and Prospectus, please click here
ga_U86
(Reap. Dec. 10766)

#### Armour and Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 4000-2.

(Decided June 3, 1964)

*Jolm D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, subject to the approval of the Court; that the merchandise and issues in the appeal for reappraisement listed above are the same in all material respects as those in *International Packers, Limited, v. United States,*51 Cust. Ct. 362, R.D. 10581 and the record in that case may be incorporated herein.

> That the involved merchandise was imported prior to the effective date February 27,1958, of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> That at the date of exportation of the merchandise involved in this appeal, to wit, July 16,1956, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Argentina, the Country of exportation, for home consumption or for export to the United States nor was it freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the United States fo,r domestic consumption.

> That cost of production as defined in Section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended for such merchandise at the time of exportation from Argentina was U.S. $23.1792 per dozen tins net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this appeal for reap-praisement may be submitted fo,r decision on this stipulation.

Accepting this stipulation as an agreed statement of facts and on authority of the decision cited therein, I find and hold that cost of production value, as defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as effective on the date the merchandise was entered or with*582drawn from warehouse for consumption, is the proper basis for determination of the value of the brisket beef, exported from Argentina,, described on the invoice and entry covered by this appeal for reap-praisement, and that such value is $23.1792 per dozen tins, net, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 60877.

#### Albert Dickinson Company *v.*United States,

protest 28623A-K (A) (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bird’s-foot trefoil seed similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Transcontinental Seed, Inc. (Alltransport, Incorporated)*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 163, C. D. 1462), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

Donlon, J.,

dissented, holding: “As I indicated in *Albert Dickinson Co.*v. *United States,*35 Cust. Ct. 359, Abstract 59603, I do not concur in the decision in *Transcontinental Seed, Inc.*v. *United States,*29 Cust. Ct. 163, C. D. 1462, the record of which has been incorporated in the record of this case. In my opinion, the protest should be overruled.”
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [Release Nos. 33-8782, 34-55350; File No. 4-532] 

# AGENCY:

Securities and Exchange Commission. 

# ACTION:

Notice of roundtable meeting.

# SUMMARY:

On Tuesday, March 6, 2007 the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a roundtable discussion on the “roadmap” regarding International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The roadmap describes the path toward eliminating the need for non-U.S. companies to reconcile to U.S. GAAP financial statements they prepare pursuant to IFRS issued by the International Accounting Standards Board in filings with the Commission. The subject matter of the roundtable will be the effect on the capital raising process in the U.S. capital markets with respect to the roadmap, the effect on investors in the U.S. capital markets with respect to the roadmap, and the effect on issuers in the U.S capital markets with respect to the roadmap. Representative(s) of the following have been invited to participate: Issuers, investors, securities counsel, underwriters, credit rating agencies, stock exchanges, academia, and audit firms. 

The roundtable will take place at the Commission's headquarters at 100 F Street, NE., Auditorium, Room L-002, Washington, DC at 10 a.m. The public is invited to observe the roundtable discussions. Seating is available on a first-come, first-serve basis. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Katrina Kimpel at (202) 551-5313. 

Dated: February 26, 2007. 

By the Commission. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7-3645 Filed 3-1-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
#### Hightstown Smyrna Rug Co. *v.*American Railway Express Co., Appellant.

*Gamers*— Loss *of goods*— Evidence—Sufficiency.

In an action to recover damages for loss in transit of a shipment of rugs, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff will be affirmed, where the evidence is sufficient to sustain the finding that the rugs were received by the carrier, and the failure to deliver to the consignee is admitted in the pleadings.

Argued December 12, 1924.

Appeal, No. 304, Oct. T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court of Philadelphia, Oct. T., 1921, No. 971, on verdict for plaintiff, in the case of Hightstown Smyrna Rug Company v. American. Railway Express Co.

Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Assumpsit to recover for loss of goods in the custody of the common carrier. Before Crane, J., without a jury.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

The court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $318. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was refusal of defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.

*Rupert C. Schaeffer, Jr.,*and with him *Bromley, Evans, Schnader and Staples,*for appellant.

*Sidney E. Smith,*for appellee.

February 27, 1925:

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

Defendant appeals from judgment rendered in a suit to recover for the loss in transit of a shipment of rugs. *608Jury trial was waived. Three assignments *of*error are filed; the third was abandoned at the oral argument because counsel for appellant conceded there was no evidence to sustain it; the second is to the refusal of a new trial, and as no abuse of discretion is suggested, we dismiss it. The remaining complaint is that the court refused judgment for defendant on the whole record. To support that, it is first said that plaintiff produced no evidence that the rugs were delivered to defendant. Plaintiff’s treasurer testified they were delivered and that defendant issued its receipt therefor, that the receipt had been sent by plaintiff to defendant in response to defendant’s request that it be so sent, and that notwithstanding plaintiff’s request for its return, defendant had not returned it. There was evidence that defendant traced the shipment and found part of it in San Francisco, though it was to have been carried from Hightstown, N. J., to Syracuse, N. Y. There is sufficient evidence to sustain the finding that defendant had received the shipment.

The other complaint is that there is no evidence that the rugs were not delivered to the consignee. But as we understand the record on this phase of the case, it was undisputed, and conceded at the trial that the shipment was not delivered to the consignee; while plaintiff’s counsel, with a witness on the stand, was apparently offering proof on that subject, counsel for defendant interrupted to say: “That is all settled in our affidavit,” and the court stated: “You [plaintiff’s counsel] don’t have to go into that.” . The concession took it out of the field of dispute.

Judgment affirmed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 23


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM






| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Form S-8, Nos. 2-36778, 2-56410, 33-30530, and 333-101091
    pertaining to the Long Term Stock Incentive Plan and predecessor
    stock plans, and outstanding effective registration statements
    on Form S-16 included in certain such S-8 filings;
|
| | Form S-8, No. 33-56369, pertaining to the JP Teamshare
    Plan and Guarantee Thrift Savings Plan and Trust;                                                                                                                                            
|
| | Form S-8, Nos. 33-64137, and 333-109090, pertaining to the
    Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan                                                                                                                                                





| |                      
| | ---------------------
| | -s- ERNST & YOUNG LLP





E-26