alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ERIC DEAN STANSBERRY, Seaman Recruit, U. S. Navy, Appellant

20 USCMA 177, 43 CMR 17

No. 23,118

November 27, 1970

*Lieutenant Scott M. Feldman,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Michael F. Fasanaro, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Darden, Judge:

Responding to questions of the military judge in this case, the appellant stated that he was aware of his right but did not desire representation by civilian counsel or military counsel of *178his own selection. He was prepared to go to trial with Lieutenant Riley, an appointed counsel, and specifically rejected the assistance of other appointed defense counsel. The military judge’s inquiry into this matter therefore complied with the requirements of Article 38(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 838. United States v Turner, 20 USCMA 167, 43 CMR 7 (1970).

For the reasons set forth in United States v Jenkins, 20 USCMA 112, 42 CMR 304 (1970), Stansberry was not prejudiced by the military judge’s lack of compliance with paragraph *63d*(2) (6), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition), concerning trial without a jury.

The decision of the United States Navy Court of Military Review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent.

In questioning the accused relative to his knowledge and understanding of his entitlement to the advice and assistance of counsel, in accordance with the provisions of Article 38(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 838 (United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149 (1969)), the military judge failed to determine whether Stansberry was aware that detailed military counsel would act as associate counsel in the event Stans-berry desired to be represented by civilian or military counsel of his own selection and wanted detailed counsel to remain. For the reasons set forth in my separate opinion, on this issue, in United States v Turner, 20 USCMA 167, 43 CMR 7 (1970), I believe this was error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused. United States v Fortier, 19 USCMA 149, 41 CMR 149 (1969); United States v Scott, 19 USCMA 383, 41 CMR 383 (1970); United States v Carter, 20 USCMA 146, 42 CMR 338 (1970); United States v Bowman, 20 USCMA 119, 42 CMR 311 (1970); United States v Goodin, 20 USCMA 160, 42 CMR 352 (1970).

I also believe it was prejudicially erroneous for the military judge to fail to inquire into whether the accused’s request for trial by military judge alone (Article 16, Code, supra, 10 USC § 816), was understandingly made, as required by paragraph 53ei(2) (6), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition). See my separate opinion in United States v Jenkins, 20 USCMA 112, 42 CMR 304 (1970).

I would reverse the decision of the Court of Military Review and direct that a rehearing may be ordered.
(Reap. Dec. 8567)

#### S. S. Kresge Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 859192, etc.

(Decided April 20, 1956)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

*George S. Leonard,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto, that the market value or the price of the merchandise on the invoices covered by the appeals for reappraisement, enumerated on Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Germany, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States was in each case the appraised value less the amount added under duress, packing included and that there was no higher foreign value.

> IT IS EURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these appeals be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was in each case the appraised value, less the amount added under duress, packing, included.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Served: October 20 , 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

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

### CHAUTAUQUA AIRLINES

, INC

.

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



### NOTICE OF REGISTRATION OF TRADE NAME

On October 6 , 2010

, Chautauqua Airlines , Inc. (“ Chautauqua ”)

, a U.S

. certificated air carrier, 1

request ed that the Department regist e r the trade name “United Expr ess” for use in certain air

transportation operations

.

Part 215 (14 CFR Part 215) of the Department’s regulations provides that any air carrier wishing

to use an alternative trade name must first register that name with the Department. The rule

fur ther states that the Department may register such name after the air carrier gives notification

to similarly named air carriers of the proposed use of the name. In this case, Chautauqua states

that it currently operates unde r the trade name “Continental E xpress ,” and in light of the recent

merger of United Air Lines Inc. (“United” ) and Continental Airlines, Inc. (“Continental ” )

, Chautauqua requires flexibi lity to operate as a United Express air carrier as well. Chautauqua

further states it has notified Un ited of the proposed use of the United Express trade name.

We note that Chautauqua state s that United will make all required discl osures of the identity of

the operating air carrier and trade name in accordance with the provisions of Part 257 of the

Department’s regulations (14 CFR Part 257)

. In addi tion, Chautauqua states that the aircraft to

be used to operate service on behalf of United will clearly indicate that Chautauqua is the

operating carrier.

Since Chautauqua has complied with the require ments of Part 215, we acknowledge the

registration of the trade name “United Express ” for immediate use in its operations.

Dated at Washington, D.C. , October 20 , 2010

.

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at:

http:// www.regulations.gov

1 Chautauqua ’s i nterstate certificate was last reissued by Order 2004

- 11

- 1, on November 4, 2004.Attachment A

SE RVICE LIST FOR CHAUTAUQUA AIRLINES, INC.

MR PATRICK R RIZZI

COUNSEL FOR CHAUTAUQUA AIRLINES INC

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

555 THIRTEENTH STREET

WASHINGTON DC 20004 MR BERNARD STANKUS RTS

- 42

OFFICE OF AIRLINE INFORMATION

DOT/RSPA/BTS E

- 36

1200 NEW JERSEY AVE SE

WASHINGTON DC 20590

MR BRUCE RABINOVITZ

WILMER HALE

1875 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW

WASHINGTON DC 20006 MR WILLIAM J WEBER

CERTIFICATION MANAGE R

FAA AFS

- 900

45005 AVIATION DRIVE SUITE 131

DULLES VA 20166

MR R BRUCE KEINER

CROWELL AND MORING LLP

1001 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW

WASHINGTON DC 20 004 MR PETER LYNCH

ASST CHIEF COUNSEL FOR E NFORCEMENT

FAA / AGC

- 300

800 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW

WASHINGTON DC 20591

MR CLAY MORITZ

OFFICE OF AIRLINE INFORMATION

DOT/RSPA/BTS E

- 36

1200 NEW JERSEY AVE SE

WASHINGTON DC 20590
No. 40236.

#### Protests 878111-G, etc., of Schatz Mfg. Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallingbr, J.

On the records presented the protests were overruled.
Case *No.*6,791.

#### In re HOWLAND.

[2 N. B. R. 357 (Quarto, 114); 1 Chi. Leg. News, 163; *2*Am. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 53.) 1

" District Court, N. D. New York.

1868.

Involuntary Bankruptcy — Petition against Married Woman — Separate Estate.

A petition in involuntary bankruptcy was filed against alleged bankrupt, a married woman, having separate estate, grounded on the nonpayment of certain promissory notes of her hand. *B.M,*that inasmuch as it did not appear on the face of the notes that it was her intention to bind her separate estate, and there being no allegation that it was given for the benefit of the separate estate, or in course of trade, petition must be dismissed, with permission to amend on payment of costs.

This was an involuntary petition against Mrs. Howland as a married woman. The petition, after the usual allegations of indebtedness, set forth that Mrs. Howland was a married woman, possessed of real and personal property in her own right, separate and apart from her husband; and' that, in the execution and delivery of the notes before mentioned, she intended to bind her separate estate, and make the payment thereof a charge upon the same. Upon the return of the order to show cause, F. E. Cornwell, Esq., for the respondent, moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that upon its face it did not show an indebtedness of a character to be a charge upon the separate estate *728of Mrs. Howland. O. E. Berry, Esq., for the petitioner, argued that the allegations were sufficient, and that since the act of 1862 [Laws N. X. 1862, p. 343] a married woman might sue and be sued entirely as If unmarried.

HALL, District Judge.

That in accordance with the decision of the court of appeals in the case of Yale v. Dederer [68 N. Y. 329], it must either appear upon the face of the note that it was the intention of Mrs. Howland to bind her separate estate thereby, or else that there must be an allegation that the note was given for the benefit of her separate estate. That under the act of 1862 a promissory note given by a married woman engaged in trade and in the course of her business, might be enforced against her separate estate under the same allegations as if she were single. That in this case there was no intention expressed in the note, which is the foundation of the petition, to bind Mrs. Howland’s separate estate; and there being no allegation that it was ¿ven for the benefit of the separate estate, or in the course of her trading transactions, the petition must be dismissed, with permission to amend in twenty days, on payment of twenty-five dollars costs.
# C_2007185EN.01000101.xml

| 8.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 185/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/1

---

State aids — Decisions to propose appropriate measures pursuant to Article 88(1) of the EC Treaty where the Member State concerned has accepted those measures

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 185/01)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 24.4.2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | E 3/05 |
| Member State | Germany |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Finanzierung des öffentlichen Rundfunks in Deutschland (ARD/ZDF) |
| Legal basis | Rundfunkstaatsvertrag (in der Fassung vom 1. März 2007), inkl. Rundfunkfinanzierungsstaatsvertrag sowie Rundfunkgebührenstaatsvertrag (in der Fassung vom 1. März 2007) |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Services of general economic interest |
| Form of aid | Parafiscal levy, Guarantee |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 6 800 million (approximate annual licence fee revenues for ARD and ZDF for the period 2005-2008); Overall budget: EUR 27 200 million (over a licence fee period of four years) |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration | The laws above constitute the basis for the continuous financing of public service broadcasting entrusted upon ARD and ZDF |
| Economic sectors | Media |
| Name and address of the granting authority | — |
| Other information | Based on the commitments given by Germany to amend the current financing regime, the Commission's concerns regarding the incompatibility of the current financing regime were dispelled and the investigation closed |

Date of adoption of the decision

24.4.2007

Reference number of the aid

E 3/05

Member State

Germany

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Finanzierung des öffentlichen Rundfunks in Deutschland (ARD/ZDF)

Legal basis

Rundfunkstaatsvertrag (in der Fassung vom 1. März 2007), inkl. Rundfunkfinanzierungsstaatsvertrag sowie Rundfunkgebührenstaatsvertrag (in der Fassung vom 1. März 2007)

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Services of general economic interest

Form of aid

Parafiscal levy, Guarantee

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 6 800 million (approximate annual licence fee revenues for ARD and ZDF for the period 2005-2008); Overall budget: EUR 27 200 million (over a licence fee period of four years)

Intensity

—

Duration

The laws above constitute the basis for the continuous financing of public service broadcasting entrusted upon ARD and ZDF

Economic sectors

Media

Name and address of the granting authority

—

Other information

Based on the commitments given by Germany to amend the current financing regime, the Commission's concerns regarding the incompatibility of the current financing regime were dispelled and the investigation closed

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/

---
Exhibit 32.6

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Long/Short Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his 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 Long/Short Commodity Series.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                                           
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                         
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                             
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund
Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Long/Short Commodity
Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                                           
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                            
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                                
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Long/Short Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              

Date: May 8, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 55 (Thursday, March 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5257]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary


Invasive Species Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings of the invasive species advisory 
committee.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, notice is hereby given of meetings of the Invasive Species 
Advisory Committee. The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to provide 
advice to the National Invasive Species Council, as authorized by 
Executive Order 13112, on a broad array of issues related to preventing 
the introduction of invasive species and providing for their control 
and minimizing the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that 
invasive species cause. The Council is Co-chaired by the Secretary of 
the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of 
Commerce. The duty of the Council is to provide national leadership 
regarding invasive species issues. The purpose of a meeting on May 1-3, 
2007 is to convene the full Advisory Committee and to discuss 
implementation of action items outlined in the National Invasive 
Species Management Plan, which was finalized on January 18, 2001.

DATES: Meeting of Invasive Species Advisory Committee: Tuesday, May 1, 
2007 and Thursday, May 3, 2007; beginning at approximately 8 a.m., and 
ending at approximately 5 p.m. each day. Members will be participating 
in an off-site tour on Wednesday, May 2, 2007.

ADDRESSES: DoubleTree Grand Hotel Biscayne Bay, 1717 North Bayshore 
Drive, Miami, Florida 33132. General Session on both days will be held 
in the Grand Ballroom.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelsey Brantley, National Invasive 
Species Council Program Analyst; Phone: (202) 513-7243; Fax: (202) 371-
1751.

    Dated: March 13, 2007.
Lori C. Williams,
Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council.
[FR Doc. E7-5257 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-RK-P
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[Proposed] Order Granting Defendants’ Second Request For An EOT To File Responsive Pleading

1

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

JAMES M. HUMES

Chief Assistant Attorney General

FRANCES T. GRUNDER

Senior Assistant Attorney General

MONICA N. ANDERSON

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

JODIE A. SCHWAB, State Bar No. 223131

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 327-1145

Fax: (916) 324-5205

Attorneys for Defendants Runnels, Clayton, Reuter,

Glensor, Phillips, Gentry, Ayers, Shepherd, Kelsch,

Grannis, Coombs, and Ramirez

SA2005300304

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 SACRAMENTO DIVISION

NORMAN TIMOTHY GREGORY,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. AYERS, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. CIV S-04-2523 DFL PAN P

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ SECOND REQUEST

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING

Defendants’ second request for an extension of time to file a motion for summary

judgment was considered by the Court. Defendants’ request is granted.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED good cause appearing, that Defendants shall have until

August 29, 2005, to file a responsive pleading.

Dated: August 16, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02523-RRB-EFB Document 15 Filed 08/17/05 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Donna Walls, Appellant, v Douglas Walls, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 905]

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Family Court’s award of maintenance was an abuse of discretion. The parties had been married for approximately 25 years when they separated. Respondent has been employed by Niagara Mohawk for 25 years and enjoys good prospects for continued employment. Respondent earned approximately $70,000 with overtime in 1992 and approximately $50,000 without overtime in 1993. Petitioner, on the other hand, has a relatively short employment record, working primarily as a part-time teacher in the Liverpool School District and earning less than half of respondent’s 1993 salary. She had to complete her master’s degree by September 1994 to obtain permanent certification as a teacher and retain her employment eligibility. Under the circumstances, we conclude that an award of maintenance of $50 per week for the period from August 26, 1992 to September 30, 1994 is equitable and we modify the order accordingly *(see, Godfryd v Godfryd,*201 AD2d 927, 929).

*926Although the court’s allocation of 50% responsibility to each party for the cost of repairs to the marital residence is appropriate, we delete the court’s designation of respondent’s obligation to contribute to the cost of repairs as maintenance.

Upon our review of the record, we also conclude that the court did not err in deviating from the Child Support Standards Act *(see,*Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [fl). Respondent is obligated to pay 75% of the parties’ older son’s educational expenses, which include room and board. The order of child support, although $41 per week less than the amount yielded by application of the formula, is supported by the record, and we conclude that it is warranted.

Finally, there is no merit to petitioner’s argument that the court should have apportioned respondent’s obligation to contribute to the college expenses of the parties’ younger son. Such an order would have been premature in light of the fact that the youngest son had not yet decided upon a college, and no evidence was presented concerning his academic interest, ability or his future expenses *(see, Gilkes v Gilkes,*150 AD2d 200, 201, quoting *Matter of Whittaker v Feldman,*113 AD2d 809, 811). (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Buck, J.—Child Support.) Present—Denman, P. J., Law-ton, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District 

OCTOBER 8, 2015 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b). 

1. Case No. SD33676 

 Re: STATE OF MISSOURI, 

 Plaintiff-Respondent, 

 vs. 

 DONOVAN JAMES OVERBY, 

 Defendant-Appellant.