alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Thomas E. Lyden, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Erie County,

November 3, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*John A. Dillon,*executor, petitioner. *Hodgson, Russ, Andrews, Woods & Goodyear (Lance J. Madden*of counsel), for Todd M. Lyden, respondent. *Thomas E. Roberts,*guardian ad litem for infant grandchildren.

OPINION OF THE COURT

William J. Regan, S.

Thomas E. Lyden, testator herein, died in the County of Erie leaving a last will and testament dated July 30, 1974, *921which was admitted to probate in this court on December 29, 1977. Article "ninth” of the last will and testament provided that one half of the testator’s residuary estate be distributed to the testator’s surviving grandchildren in equal shares. Under article "tenth” of the will, the testator specifically disinherited his only child, a son, Thomas J. Lyden.

It is stipulated by the parties that the testator’s son, Thomas J. Lyden, has had little or no contact with his father since he was approximately 17 years old. It is further stipulated that Thomas J. Lyden has six children, one of whom being the respondent, Todd Michael Lyden, who was born out of wedlock on January 5, 1974. On January 7, 1974, Thomas J. Lyden executed a certificate of paternity before a notary public wherein and whereby he acknowledged being the father of Todd Michael Lyden.

The issue presented to this court is whether or not Todd Michael Lyden is entitled to a one-sixth share of the residuary bequest to surviving grandchildren under article "ninth” of the will of the testator herein.

The well-established rule is that the courts construe language used in wills by reference to the testator’s intended meaning. *(Matter of Jones,*38 NY2d 189; *Matter of Thall,*18 NY2d 186.) This intention is to be ascertained from a reading of the four corners of the will. *(Matter of Kosek,*31 NY2d 475.)

*Matter of Hoffman*(53 AD2d 55) enunciates the rule that a testator’s use of terms such as "issue”, "child” or "children”, should be construed to include illegitimate descendants unless a clear contrary intention of the testator can be shown. The testator herein did not attempt in article "ninth” of his will to limit the class of "grandchildren” in any way. He named no individuals nor indicated a specific exclusion of any of them.

It is the court’s decision, therefore, that the word "grandchildren” should be construed to refer to legitimate and illegitimate descendants alike in the absence of any express qualification by the testator, and therefore the respondent, Todd Michael Lyden, is entitled to one-sixth share of the residuary bequest under article "ninth” of the last will and testament of Thomas E. Lyden. This matter is being placed on the 10:15 calendar for November 22, 1978, to fix and determine legal fees.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 57 (Monday, March 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14109-14110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5424]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the

[[Page 14110]]

standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless 
otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the 
United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may 
be obtained from the National Information Center website at http://www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 16, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Anne McEwen, Financial 
Specialist) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
    1. Boymelgreen Financial Holdings Inc., New York, New York; to 
become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting 
shares of LibertyPointe Bank, both of New York, New York.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Patrick M. Wilder, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Marshall & Ilsley Corporation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; to acquire 
100 percent of the voting shares of Excel Bank Corporation, 
Minneapolis, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of 
Excel Bank Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 19, 
2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-5424 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Bonarablr daor@ R. Sheppard Comptroller of Publlo Aooountr 

Awtin, Trxae 

In your lsttoc 0 

our opfnlon ltl re~poneo to 

and ownbr ovit agalnmt the 

suoh noto and 

8 l 8tlo n eo nto **o ura* n a r dl~- 

y, the sta te, the 00unEy, 

ant rahool di8triot, in 

eat o? the lien a valid, 

aeoessarl on17 in oaao eaah had 

ax colleotor~’ 

a transfer and srrlgnnwat fws 8 

Golleotor be rufrlolent tithout a 

far from the rtate or any other 

tcpxing unit whiloh may hold taxer mga:ainst the property?’ tt 

Artlole 7346a, Vernon’s Annota1ced Ul~ll 8tatutm, 

expro~~ely provides that a pereon may pay asy taxer due upon 

real property at the request of thr owner of sU0h pawporty 

and obtain a transfer of the tax lien. 8ueh statute authorlmr the tax oolleotors of the Nate, oowtles mnd other 
Wnorabls f3sargo H. Sheppard, Page 2 

subdIvl6lons to rxsoute the transfer6 of tu lIen6, and 

In Bsotlon 2 I6 found a form of oertlfioats of transisr 

whloh mar be ussd. It 16 nOt6d, however, that the 6tatUtO 

merely provid66 that the tax oolleotor61 csrtlfloats need 

only bs in "8ubstantIally" ths form provided. Answering 

your second and third quslrtione, it IO our oplnlon thst if 

the oounty tax oolleotor also aOt6 a6 rush for a oity, an 

Independent aohool dlstrlot and other 6ubdlvlslon6 h6 may 

sxeouts a ssparats transfer for eaoh tulng body for whom 

hs aOt6, or he may maks a Single lnetrument suffioe for 

all of thorn. In ths latter event, howsvsr, the cortlfloate 

must oontaln rubstantlally the slsasnto art forth In the 

pmsorlbed Sorm a6 to saoh of the taxing bodlss.. fRi8 sertlfloate should d66oribS the tu oollsotor a6 being thr 

oolleotor tor all of the bodias for whom hm sots and It 

should show the name6 of the rer~ous tuIng unit6 whore 

lien6 he 1s transferring. 

Ws are unable to answsr your first $rasrsl question as to whether the taking of a doed of trust would 

waive the tax lien. Eaah 6a6e will lW6t on its OWCI faots. 

very trulr Tour6 

(tlsnn R. Lewis, 

AS6iSt~nt 

APPROVEDMAR 21, 1941 

@+=----e-+--- 

ATTORNEY GEL!ERAL OF TEXAS
Note: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this order is not citable as precedent. 

It is a public record. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

04-1058, -1080 

CEMEX, S.A., 

Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

v. 

THE AD HOC COMMITTEE OF AZ-NM-TX-FL PRODUCERS 

OF GRAY PORTLAND CEMENT 

and NATIONAL CEMENT COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, 

Defendants-Appellants.

O R D E R

Before NEWMAN, MICHEL, and RADER, Circuit Judges. 

A petition for panel rehearing having been filed by the APPELLEE, UNITED 

STATES, 

UPON CONSIDERATION THEREOF, it is 

 ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is GRANTED for the limited 

purpose of making the changes indicated on the attached errata and is, in all other 

respects, DENIED. 

 The mandate of the court will issue on December 21, 2004. 

 FOR THE COURT 

December 14, 2004 Jan Horbaly 

 

 Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk 

c: Joseph W. Dorn, Esq. 

 Irwin P. Altschuler, Esq. 

 David S. Silverbrand, Esq. 
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

ERRATA

December 14, 2004 

#04-1058, 04-1080: Cemex, S.A. v. United States 

Precedential Opinion 

Issued: September 28, 2004 

Please make the following correction: 

On page 15 of the opinion, change the sentence to read: “Designed to enable 

domestic manufacturers to contest Customs’ determinations regarding the 

appraised value, classification, or rate of duty on imported merchandise, [FN8] 

section 1516 contemplates remedies solely prospective in nature, and cannot 

after-the-fact cure Customs’ decisions with respect to liquidation, legal or illegal.”
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Heath B. Clarke, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Interchange Corporation, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Interchange Corporation;2.
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    The small business issuer other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the small business issuer, is made known to
us by others within the small business issuer, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;b)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting; and  5.
    The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuers board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data; andb)
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting. Date: May 13, 2005
    /s/ Heath B. ClarkeHeath B. ClarkeChief Executive Officer and Chairman
(Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 13.1

      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of NDS Group plc ("the
registrant") for the fiscal year ended 30 June 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Abraham
Peled, Executive Director, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

     1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



                                                  By /s/ Abraham Peled
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                         Abraham Peled
                                                         Chief Executive Officer


                                                         Date: 3 December 2003




                                      E-4
Case *No.*9,094.

#### In re MARKS.1

District Court, D. New Jersey.

May 29, 1877.

Bankruptcy — Partnership—Discharge of Partner.

[Where there are no partnership assets to be collected and distributed, an individual member of a former partnership may, upon his own petition, be discharged from all his debts, both partnership and private.]

[Cited in Re Plumb, Case No. 11.231.]

[On specifications against the discharge of Charles P. Marks, a bankrupt.]

1

 [Not previously reported.]

BT THE COURT.

The second specification against the discharge would have been fatal, if it did not appear by the affidavit of the assignee and the report of the register that there were no assets remaining of the partnership. The applicant is one of the late firm of Marks, Palmer & Cushman. He applies for a discharge from his debts, partnership as well as personal. If there were assets of the partnership to be collected, it would be necessary to have the firm adjudicated bankrupts, and an assignee appointed to collect and distribute the same, before any individual member of the firm could be discharged. In re Little [Case No. 8,390]; In re *764Bidwell [Id. 1,392]; In re Grady [Id. 5.654]. But this principle only applies to partnerships actually existing, or where there are assets belonging to the firms. In re Winkens [Id. 17.875]. Where there are no partnership assets to be collected and paid out, one member of a former partnership may, upon his individual petition, be discharged from all his debts, partnership and private. In re Abbe [Id. 4]. It is not necessary to consider the third specification, because no assent of creditors need be asked for in regard to debts contracted before January 1, 1SG9. and it does not appear that the bankrupt has contracted any since that date. A discharge will be granted to the bankrupt from all his debts, partnership and individual, incurred previous to January 1, 1SGI).
SERVED: OCTOBER 15, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF

VECTORUSA LLC DOCKETNO. FAA-2014-0687 (Civil Penalty Action)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011S0070002) has been assignedto Administrative LawJudge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, andthe other persons onthe attached Service List.**/~~-** 

# /

Attachment

- Service List

### SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. 

### MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1



### Ken Hammerton Vector- USA, LLC d/b/aVectair -USA, LLC 11299 Airport Road Olive Branch, MS 38654 TEL: 662-893-6775 ONE COPY



### Andrea Michelle Harper, Complainant's Counsel 

### Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region 1701 Columbia Avenue College Park, GA 30337 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 Ron. J.E. Sullivan,Administrative LawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2014-0687 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned Joseph Pioppi, President of Goldeneye Capital Group, Inc. hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Goldeneye Capital Group, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Goldeneye Capital
Group, Inc.


 Dated: April 11, 2005


 /s/ Joseph Pioppi
 -----------------
 Joseph Pioppi
 President
 (Principal Executive Officer)
From: Tim Mitro To: Sutkus, Carol@ARB ; Hicks, Austin@ARB ; Lewis, Monica@ARB Cc: Christopher D. Brown AICP ; Sondra Spaethe Subject: Feather River AQMD - SIP Submittal - Rule 3.22 - Final Date: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:35:22 PM

To ARB Rule Group,

On October 6, 2014, the Feather River AQMD’s Board of Directors approved the amendments to District Rule 3.22. The District is requesting to submit this rule revision into the SIP to replace the previously issued Limited Approval – Limited Disapproval for the rule.

As previously discussed, the District has uploaded the required documents onto Dropbox. You can find the required information at the following URL: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/225yaudzahbp9zm/AACdD88ZTJcdmjRB5sUegb1qa?dl=0

The required documents for Feather River AQMD’s inclusion of Regulation III, Rule 3.22 – Stationary Internal Combustion Engines into the SIP include the following:

- SIP Checklist 3.22

- SIP eval form 3.22

- Rule 3.22 (Final)

- Rule 3.22 Resolution

- Rule 3.22 Public Notice

- Rule 3.22 Staff Report (Final)

- Rule 3.22 Lineout-Strikeout

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

Timothy Mitro Feather River AQMD - Air Quality Engineer (530) 634-7659 ext. 208 1007 Live Oak Blvd, Suite B-3 Yuba City, CA 95991 www.fraqmd.org
#### First National Bank of New York, *Respondent, v.*Continental National Bank of New York, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Daniels, J.
No. 61926.

#### United China & Glass Company *v.*United States,

protest 322760-K/15155 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that item 47/4420, contained in cases 8622 to 8686, page 38 of the invoice, consists of decorated earthenware saucers, valued at 55 cents or more per dozen, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
-----John Humes <JHumes@HEPN.com> wrote: ----- 

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: John Humes <JHumes@HEPN.com> 

Date: 07/08/2010 03:58PM 

cc: Michalene Reilly <mreilly@HEPN.com>, Lon Petts <lpetts@HEPN.com>, Brenton Fender 

<BFender@HEPN.com> 

Subject: Request for extension to answer Steam Electric ICR Questionnaire 

Ms. Alicea-Virella,

DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AND BY CERTIFIED MAIL

RE: Request for Extension for Steam Electric Power Generating Industry ICR 

Merom Generating Station, NPDES Permit No. IN0050296

Plant ID 03719

Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. is requesting an extension for completing the 

Steam Electric Power Generating Industry information collection request (ICR) questionnaire for 

our Merom Generating Station. Hoosier Energy is the generation and transmissions cooperative 

which serves the rural areas of central and southern Indiana through 18 rural electric 

distribution cooperatives. As a small cooperatively owned electric power generator, our small 

environmental staff is working on the many initiatives coming out of the Environmental 

Protection Agency for Steam Electric generators. 

 

The Merom Station is required to complete the longer Version I of the questionnaire. In order to 

accomplish completion of Version 1, a significant amount of time and effort is required. In 

addition, there are several technical questions for which we need clarification before we can be 

sure we have answered all section of the questionnaire properly and plan to seek guidance from 

technical staff at the agency in the near future. 

 

The Merom Station does not have ponds or impoundments in the classic sense as we 

understand the focus of the ICR (ash ponds). Instead it has a dry ash handling system and a 

wastewater treatment system of synthetically lined earthen basins (see attachment). In 

addition we have earthen lined stormwater basins which do capture stormwater and ash from 

our on-site landfill. 

Page 1 of 2

about:blank 8/24/2011
 

These issues are causing uncertainties in answering Parts D and F. We are formulating a series 

of questions for your technical assistance staff and will submit them as soon as possible. For 

these reasons, we believe 90 days does not provide adequate time to respond to the information 

request. We intend to complete the questionnaire as quickly as possible, but request an 

extension of 60 days to insure we can meet the required deadline. 

It should be noted that we are also completing an ICR questionnaire for our Frank E. Ratts 

Generating Station, (Plant ID 02314) and we anticipate submitting it within the 90 day 

timeframe. 

 

If you have comments or questions, please contact me or Mr. Lon Petts at 812-876-2021. 

John Humes 

Environmental Specialist 

Hoosier Energy REC, Inc. 

812-876-0374 

Page 2 of 2

about:blank 8/24/2011
No. 44040.

#### Protests 359813-G, etc., of Henry Kayser *&*Fils, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel Alenijon laces similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Caesar*(18 C. C. P. A. 106, T. D. 44067), embroidered net galloons and laces like those passed upon in Abstracts 12555 and 11913, and embroidered doilies and collars similar to those the subject of *Pustet*v. *United States*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 530, T. D. 41396) were held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 as claimed.