alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THEODORE KOLYER, Respondent, *v.*GEORGE BENNETT, as Executor, etc., of ELIZA A. KOLYER, Deceased, Appellant.

*Legacy —when payable before the expiration of one yea/r from the testator’s death.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon an order sustaining a demurrer to the answer, and granting leave to the plaintiff to issue execution upon the judgment.

The action' was brought to recover a legacy.

The court at General Term said: “No doubt this action was prematurely brought, unless the will contains an express direction for the payment of the legacy to Theodore Kolyer within one year after the death of the testator. (2 R. S., 90, sec 43; Code Oiv. Proc., sec. 1819; *Brad/ner*v. *Faulkner,*12 N. Y., 474; *Wheeler*v. *RutJwen,*74 id., 431.) The will bequeaths to each of several grandchildren of the testatrix named therein, .certain pecuniary legaciés, and also bequeaths to her son, Theodore Kolyer, the sum of $2,000, ‘ which sum (the will proceeds to direct) shall be kept to his refusal in the hands of my daughter, Mrs. Sarah Jane Bennett, and paid to him only in the way and manner as he may request.’ The will then directs as follows: ‘All these before named sums of *507money bequeathed to my grandchildren shall be paid to each and every one by my hereafter named executor at the elapse of six months after my death; but the money bequeathed to my son Theodore shall be paid over to my daughter Sarah Jane Bennett and by her properly invested to stand to his refusal as formerly stated.’

“ It will be readily perceived that the sole object of this clause was to designate the time for the payment of legacies. The naming of Theodore therein, we think, shows the intention of the testatrix that the time so fixed should apply to and govern the legacy to him as well as the other legacies. The language employed could have been intended to make no other qualification touching the legacy to Theodore, than that it should be paid to her daughter and not to the legatee personally. "Without such qualification, the direction might have been construed as a change of the previous clause whereby the legacy to him was bequeathed, and a repetition of the direction for its payment to her daughter can have no other significance.

“ Unless the testatrix intended to prescribe a time for the payment of all the legacies, the insertion of Theodore’s name therein was useless and nugatory.

“We think, however, that the court erred in granting leave to the plaintiff to issue execution for the enforcement of the judgment, and that the judgment should be modified by striking out the clause which grants such leave. Inasmuch as the defendant is acting in a representative capacity, he should have leave to plead anew.”

*Albert G.*McDonald, for the appellant.

*M S. Pride*for the respondent.

Opinion by

G-ilbeet, J.;

DykmáN, J., concurred;

BaeNAed, P. J., not sitting.

Judgment modified by striking out leave to issue execution, and as modified affirmed, with costs. Leave "given to appellant to plead anew.
Archive

**Consumer Bill of Rights and ResponsibilitiesReport to the President of the United States
Prepared by Advisory Commission on Consumer Protectionand Quality in the Health Care Industry**November 1997**Table of Contents
**Complete Report** (161K)
Executive Summary
 (18K)
**Preamble** (16K)
**Chapter One: Information Disclosure** (24K)
**Chapter Two: Choice of Providers and Plans** (20K)
**Chapter Three: Access to Emergency Services** (9K)
**Chapter Four: Participation in Treatment Decisions** (17K)
**Chapter Five: Respect and Nondiscrimination** (17K)
**Chapter Six: Confidentiality of Health Information** (11K)
**Chapter Seven: Complaints and Appeals** (19K)
**Chapter Eight: Consumer Responsibilities** (17K)
**Acknowledgments**
**Advisory Commission Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry**[ About the Commission | Charter | Commission Membership | Press Releases | Meetings  ]Last Revised: Friday, July 17, 1998

**
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8272 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8272

   To prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from conditioning the 
receipt of Federal financial assistance on reducing the dimensions of a 
   runway, an apron, or a taxiway of certain airports, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2024

 Mr. Huizenga introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from conditioning the 
receipt of Federal financial assistance on reducing the dimensions of a 
   runway, an apron, or a taxiway of certain airports, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Runway Integrity and Military 
Readiness Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
Transportation may not require an airport to shorten the length or 
width of the runway, apron, or taxiway of the airport as a condition 
for the receipt of Federal financial assistance if the airport directly 
supports a base of the United States Air Force or the Air National 
Guard at the airport, regardless of the stationing of military 
aircraft.
                                 <all>
```
(V. D. 88)

#### Manca, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 814300, etc.

(Decided October 21, 1958)

*Eugene R. Pickrell*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olivee, Chief Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the first division of this court in *Manca, Inc., and E. Leitz, Inc.*v. *United States,*39 Cust. Ct. 358, Abstract 61031, and it has been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the above remands of protest consists of Microscope Parts and Microscopes and Wooden Cabinets, containers for said microscope parts and microscopes, which were the subject of a judgment and decision by the First Division of this Court in the case of *Manca,*
>       *466
>       *Inc., et at.*v. *United States,*Abstract 61031, on July 10, 1967, wherein it is stated “* * * and remand the matter, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, U. S. C. § 2636 (d), for further proceedings before a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the imported merchandise in the manner provided for by law.”

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States were as follows:



IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above remands of protest may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find escort value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, and I hold such dutiable value for each of the articles to be as hereinabove set forth in the stipulation of submission. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# EUR-Lex - - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

#

**Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections Text with EEA relevance **

*
Official Journal C 248 , 23/10/2007 P. 0003 - 0003 *

20071023

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 248/02)

Date of adoption of the decision | 25.9.2007 |

Reference number of the aid | N 197/07 |

Member State | Germany |

Region | — |

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Methode zur Berechnung des Beihilfelements von Bürgschaften |

Legal basis | — |

Type of measure | Aid scheme |

Objective | Regional development |

Form of aid | Guarantee |

Budget | — |

Intensity | — |

Duration | 25.9.2007- 31.12.2013 |

Economic sectors | All sectors |

Name and address of the granting authority | — |

Other information | — |

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

--------------------------------------------------
Southern Star Central Corp.

Southern Star Central Gas PIpeline, Inc.

4700 Highway 56

Owensboro, KY 42301



May 10, 2010



Susanne W. Harris

1621 Linden Avenue

Owensboro, KY 42301



Dear Susie:



This letter is being presented for your consideration as respects the current Employment Agreement Agreement between Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (SSCGP), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Southern Star Central Corp. (Company) and you, Susanne W. Harris, named Executive dated August 11, 2005, as amended January 1, 2009.



Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the original Agreement, dated August 11, 2005, language provides for its expiration concurrent with the fifth anniversary from that date, or August 11, 2010. SSCGP and Company desire to extend said Agreement until December 31, 2010.  The Agreement will expire at midnight December 31, 2010 without prior notice being required of either SSCGP and Company, or Executive.



SSCGP and Company will be in the process of reviewing potential employment terms of all SSCGP Officers beyond that date.



If the above terms are acceptable to you, please execute in the space provided below and return to Rob Carlton, Vice President, Human Resources by close of business May 13, 2010.  Otherwise, the existing Agreement terminates on August 11, 2010.



SOUTHERN STAR CENTRAL CORP.



/s/ Beverly H. Griffith

Beverly H. Griffith



SOUTHERN STAR CENTRAL GAS PIPELINE, INC



/s/ Robert W. Carlton

Robert W. Carlton

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:



/s/ Susanne W. Harris

Susanne W. Harris

Date:  5/11/2010



# Endnotes





Exhibit 10.34
No. 63181.

#### P. John Hanrahan, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/21542 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of mother-of-pearl disks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Paramount Import Export Co. et al.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 82, C.A.D. 677), except as to size, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 30, 2016

NO. 03-95-00509-CV

David Vasquez, Appellant

v.

Alonso Camara d/b/a Alonso Camara Insurance Agency, Progressive County Mutual 

Insurance Company, and Bank One, Texas, N.A., Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND BOURLAND

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on May 5, 1995. Having reviewed 

the record, the Court holds that David Vasquez has not prosecuted his appeal and did not comply 

with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of 

prosecution. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the 

court below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GOSS HOLDINGS, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERNCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              29
<SECURITIES>                                         1
<RECEIVABLES>                                      176
<ALLOWANCES>                                        42
<INVENTORY>                                        152
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   324
<PP&E>                                             208
<DEPRECIATION>                                      67
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     784
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              527
<BONDS>                                            307
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                          77
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       784
<SALES>                                            608
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   608
<CGS>                                              610
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      796
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     2
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  44
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (234)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         4
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (238)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    108
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (130)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Before the First Division,

September 7, 1944

No. 49705.

#### Petition 6405-R of Bauer Type Foundry, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It appeared from the testimony of the president of the petitioner corporation that he had been importing printing type for a number of years and that its entered value had never been questioned until this shipment arrived. When entering the petitioner used the foreign value which was higher than the export price shown on entry. The appraiser claimed United States value to be the proper basis. After several conferences between customs officials, the petitioner, and the New York representative of the foreign shipper, it was agreed to submit the question to the court for determination through an appeal for appraisement. After lengthy litigation petitioner’s contention was sustained *(United States*v. *Heemsoth-Kerner Corp. (Bauer Type Foundry, Inc.),*31 C. C. P. A. 75, C. A. D. 252). Because the court’s finding of dutiable cost of production exceeded petitioner’s entered value, the additional duties accrued. On the record as presented, together with customs agent’s report based on investigation of the entry in question, the court was convinced that the relief requested should be allowed. The petition was therefore granted.
#### LADAUX v. BERKSHIRE et al.

(District Court. W. D. Texas.

March 6, 1911.)

Petition for writ of habeas corpus by Lena Ladaux to obtain relator’s discharge from the custody of F. W’. Berkshire and another, pursuant to an order of deportation.

Writ denied.

Lewis Maury Kemp and Robert T. Neill, for petitioner.

Charles A. Boynton, U. S. Arty., for respondents.

MAXEY, District Judge.

Petitioner was arrested and ordered deported on the charge of being an alien, practicing prostitution in the United States, or of being an inmate of a house of prostitution. The petition was submitted with that of Marcello Sire (185 Fed. 967). The eases involve similar questions of fact and law.

In the Sire Case the prayer Cor the writ of habeas corpus was denied, and a similar order will be entered in this ease.
No. 41849.

#### Protest 839780-G of Algoma Plywood & Veneer Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

Upon more mature deliberation the court was satisfied that the mechanism in question is more than a saw and that it was not the intention of Congress to include it under the provisions of paragraph 340. T. D. 47785 cited. The gang-saw mill in question was therefore held properly classified at 27H percent under paragraph 372.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ROGER KENNETH CRAWFORD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-2139

[April 13, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; William L. Roby, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 562021CF002226A

and 562022CF000661A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, Christine C. Geraghty, and Ross F. 

Berlin, Assistant Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, CIKLIN and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Enclosure D

(CONFIDENTIAL Document)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60979 Summary Calendar

EDUARDO NAVARRETE; MARIA ESTHER NAVARRETE; ESTHER NAVARRETE Petitioners

v. PETER D. KEISLER, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A79 003 488 BIA No. A79 003 489 BIA No. A79 006 490
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Eduardo Navarrete, Maria Esther Navarrete (wife), and Esther Navarrete (daughter) have filed a petition for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of their applications for the cancellation ofremoval. Petitioners maintain the United States citizen daughter ofEduardoand Maria Esther Navarrete, Sara Navarrete, will suffer exceptional United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 10, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-60979

2 and extremely unusual hardship if they are required to return to their native Mexico. Petitioners contend the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the BIA erred in finding Sara Navarrete would not suffer such hardship. Petitioners further contend the IJ erred when he refused: to subpoena one of their witnesses; and to consider all of their documentary evidence. This court lacks jurisdiction to review an IJ's hardship determination in the context ofa cancellation of removal application because it is a discretionary deci sion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Wilmore v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 524, 526-28 (5th Cir. 2006); Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the petition is dismissed to the extent it seeks review from the decision to deny cancellation of removal. Petitioners also claim the denial of cancellation of removal violated their due process rights. We have jurisdiction to consider this legal question. Hernandez-Castillov. Moore , 436 F.3d 516, 519 (5th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 40 (2006). The contention is unavailing, however, as Petitioners’ “[e]ligibility for discretionary relief from a removal order is not a liberty or property interest warranting due process protection”. Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 219 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To the extent Petitioners challenge the denial of cancellation of removal on due processgrounds, the petition is denied. To the extent Petitioners assert the IJ violated their due process rightswhen he refused to subpoena their witness and consider their evidence, the record establishes that the IJ did not violate Petitioners’ due process rights. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 01534**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 01534\01534_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 01534\01534_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 01534\01534_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 01534\01534_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 01534\Certification Statement Plant ID 01534.pdf Plant certification statement

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
The State of

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 19, 2015

No. 04-15-00295-CR

Gary Lee AVANT,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR5555

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

ORDER

 The trial court’s request for an extension of time to issue findings in response to this 

court’s order dated September 28, 2015 is granted. We order the reporter’s record of the hearing 

and the supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings and conclusions are due 

November 30, 2015. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of October, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court