alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
February 11, 1958

Reap. Dec. 9073.

#### *Glanson Co.*v. *United States.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. Reap. Dee. 9047. Motion by plaintiff.
Addendum to Docket No FAA

- 2015

- 3736

The reasons why granting Mike Nilsson would be in the public interest. This is how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 Pollution; if a traditional aircraft performed the same intended operations then 20

- 30 gallons of fuel would be used to pollute our already polluted air. The public will benefit from less pollution since our UAS are using rechargeable lithium ion batteries versus fossil fuels.

 Safety; if a traditional aircraft performed the same intended operation s with low flying aircraft it would be very difficult and unsafe to get low enough to the subject to provide useful footage. In addition, an accident with a traditional aircraft can have devastating and often lethal effects on misfortunate bystanders compa red to a UAS. The public will benefit from safer airspace operations.

 Noise; If a traditional aircraft performed the same intended operations the local FSDO's would be flooded with public complaints of low flying aircrafts and the noise generated by them. The public will benefit from less noise generated from our UAS versus traditional aircrafts.

 Cost; if a traditional aircraft performed the same intended operations the cost to achieve comparable quality photos would end up costing 10 times as much and qual ity of footage would never be reached. The public will benefit by getting a better product for less cost.

 Efficiency; if a traditional aircraft performed the same intended operations it would need to take off from the local airport. With 360's intended us age of UAS, take off and landing can be done safely at the subject properties and thereby reducing the congestion at the otherwise used airport. The public will benefit from eliminating the usage of already crowded airports.

Summary of why granting Mike Nilsson the 333 exemption and how this would benefit the public as a whole.

It would give the public less pollution, more safety, less, noise, less cost and it would increase the overall efficiency of air space usage.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 24, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 3148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-987]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): NIOSH Occupational Health and Safety Research, 
Program Announcement Number (PAR) 06-484

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:

    Time and Date: 8 a.m.-5 p.m., February 9, 2007 (Closed).
    Place: 1750 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20006.
    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance 
with provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 
U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis 
and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters To Be Discussed: The SEP meeting will include the 
review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in 
response to ``NIOSH Occupational Health and Safety Research,'' PAR 
06-484. The applications being reviewed include information of a 
confidential nature, including personal information concerning 
individuals associated with the applications.
    Contact Person for More Information: Horace M. Stiles, DDS, PhD, 
MPH, Designated Federal Officer, 15111 Farm Market Road, Maypearl, 
Texas 76064-1902, telephone 404.498.2584.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry.

    Dated: January 18, 2007.
Elaine L. Baker,
Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E7-987 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
No. 96-7606.

#### Remeta *v.*Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,654
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,654
<PP&E>                                          62,132
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,786
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        98,703
<OTHER-SE>                                     521,959
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    82,786
<SALES>                                          5,491
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,491
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (99,714)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (99,714)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (99,714)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)


</TABLE>
#### J. H. Smart *et al., as Partners, etc.,*v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company.

No. 16,079.

*Negligence*— Injury *by Fire*— Instructions. In an action to recover for injuries caused by a fire alleged to have been set out by defendant’s engine, the refusal of instructions requested by the defendant held not to have been error.

Error from Morris district court; OSCAR L. MOORE, judge.

Opinion filed June 5, 1909.

Affirmed.

*Dennis Madden,*for the plaintiffs in error.

*B. P. Waggoner,*and *J. M. Challiss,*for the defendant in error.'

*Per Curiam:*

The special finding that the defendant did not set the fire ends the case. The plaintiffs offer nothing convincing to show that this finding was induced otherwise than ■ by the evidence, which overwhelmingly supports it.

*439The gist of the third request is this: If the circumstances present a reasonably adequate explanation of the fire on the hypothesis that it was set out by the engine the jury may so find. This is precisely what the court undertook to say in the instruction given. The phraseology employed is technically somewhat inapt, but the meaning is unmistakable. From all the expressions used, rfead together, the jury understood well enough how to deal with the evidence offered by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ discomfort is occasioned by the fact that they produced no evidence which could prevail against the defendant’s proof, if the latter was accepted by the jury as true.

The fourth request singled out a particular circumstance, held it up before the jury, told them to take it •as evidence, and told them its weight and effect under certain conditions. Of course this request was properly denied.

The jury were properly advised that the burden rested upon the plaintiffs to show that the defendant set out the fire. Since they failed to establish this indispensable fact it is immaterial what occurred at the trial respecting other features of the case.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I,  Joseph M. Naughton,  certify  that:

1.  I  have  reviewed  this  annual  report  on  Form 10-KSB of Go Online
Networks Corporation and Subsidiaries;

2.  Based  on  my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 annual
report;

3.  Based  on  my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other financial
information  included  in  this  annual  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 annual report;

4.  I  am  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 to ensure that material
information  relating  to  the  registrant  is made known to me by others within
those  entities,  particularly  during the period in which this annual report is
being  prepared;

b.  evaluated  the  effectiveness  of  the  registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures  as  of  the  end  of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation;  and

c. presented in this annual report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based on my evaluation on such evaluation
Date;

d.  Disclosed  in  this  report any changes in the registrant's internal control
over  financial  reporting  that  occurred  during  the registrant's most recent
fiscal  quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to affect,
the  registrant's  internal  control  over  financial  reporting;

5.  I  have  disclosed,  based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors  and the audit committee of registrant'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 reasonable
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize  and  report  information;  and

b.  any  fraud,  whether  or  not  material,  that  involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial  reporting.



Date:  April  14,  2004                        By:  /s/  Joseph M. Naughton
                                                    -----------------------
                                                    Joseph M. Naughton
                                                Principal  Financial  Officer

<PAGE>
No. 48197.

#### Protests 942420-G, etc., of Olivier Straw Goods Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the hemp hats in question are similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218) and the hemp knotted straw hats are similar to those involved in Abstract 46497, the claim under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) was sustained as to these items.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**SARBANES-OXLEY
  SECTION 302 (a) CERTIFICATION
  OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**



I, Danny L. Pixler, the Registrant's Chief Executive Officer,
  certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Certified Services,
  Inc.;

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 quarterly report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
  controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14)
  for the Registrant and I have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures
  to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its
  consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,
  particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures
  as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report
  (the "Evaluation Date"); and c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions
  about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my
  evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the
  Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors
  (or persons performing the equivalent function): a) all significant deficiencies
  in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect
  the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
  data and have identified for the Registrant's auditors any material weaknesses
  in internal controls; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
  management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's
  internal controls; and

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there
  were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
  significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent
  evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies
  and material weaknesses.

| | Date: April 30, 2004
| | --------------------

| | /s/ Danny L. PixlerChief Executive
      Officer
| | ------------------------------------------------



---
Case No. 8,698.

#### McCLINTICK v. CUMMINS.

[2 McLean, 98.] 2

Circuit Court, D. Indiana.

May Term, 1840.

Notes — Fraudulently Obtained — Assignee— , Fon Value — Practice—General Issue —Affidavit.

1. If the maker of a note prove that it was fraudulently obtained, the plaintiff, being as-signee, is bound to show that the note was assigned to him for a valuable consideration.

[Cited in First Nat. Bank v. Green. 43 N. Y. ■ 301; Hazard v. Spencer, 17 R. I. 563, 23 Atl. 730; Vosburgh v. Diefendorf, 119 N. Y. 365. 23 N. E. 802.]

.2. The general issue, which denies the execution. of the instrument, must be sworn to, under the statute of Indiana, which is adopted as a rule of practice in this court

[This was an action at law by John Me-Clintick against David Cummins. The suit was originally before the courr upon demurrer in Case No. 8,700.]

Mr. Brice, for plaintiff.

Mr. Stevens, for defendant.

*1272OPINION OF

THE COURT.

The plaintiff. as indorsee of a promissory note, brought this action; and the defendant has pleaded the general issue, and annexed a notice that he would prove, on the trial, the note was fraudulently obtained by duress. &c. And the question now submitted to the court is, whether, if fraud shall be proved, the plaintiff shall be required to show that the note was assigned to him for a valuable consideration. The note and the assignment import a valuable consideration, but the consideration of either may be impeached. If a note were given without consideration, and was afterwards assigned for a valuable consideration, the original want of consideration would not. be a good plea, by the maker of the note, against the assignee. Hence it is necessary, under the late forms of pleading in the action of assumpsit, adopted in England, for the maker of the note to plead, when the action is brought by the as-signee, that the note was given, and also assigned, without consideration; and the plaintiff can then join issue, either on the want of consideration on the giving of the note, or on the assignment of it, but not on both. The same question is substantially presented, in a form somewhat different, by the present notice. Under the notice, the defendant is bound to show that the note was obtained fraudulently, as alleged; and, this being done, the plaintiff is then required to show how he obtained the note. The fraud established, throws suspicion on the note, and devolves on the plaintiff the necessity of proving, that he received the note in the due course of business, and paid for it a valuable consideration. 5 Pick. 412; Chit. Bills, 78, 79; 5 Bin. 469; 1 Camp. 100; 2 Camp. 574.

A question is made before the court, whether the statute of the state of Indiana, which requires a plea that puts in issue the execution of the instrument on which the action is founded, to be sworn to, is regarded by the court This statute is adopted as a rule of practice; and, unless the truth of the plea be verified by affidavit, the execution of the instrument need not be proved.

[This ease was subsequently heard by the court, a jury being waived. The plaintiff was nonsuited. Case No. 8,099.]
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Factory Jobs : Employment Outlook for Workers in Jobs Requiring Little or No Experience or Specialized Training

              																	Sutherland, Ian R. 						*Factory Jobs : Employment Outlook for Workers in Jobs Requiring Little or No Experience or Specialized Training : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1288*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										January 1971,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4561,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 7
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 7
EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 7
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 7
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 7
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 7
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 7
(Reap. Dec. 9661)

#### Fed. Tele. *&*Radio Co. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 819736; 840363.

(Decided April 12, 1960)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

The above-enumerated appeals for a reap-praisement present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain telephone equipment exported from Belgium.

By stipulation of the parties hereto, it has been agreed that, on or about the date of exportation, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale in Belgium either for home consumption or for export to the United States. It was further stipulated and agreed that, on or about that date, such or similar imported merchandise was-not freely offered for sale for domestic consumption in the United States and that the cost of production of said merchandise, as defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402 (f)),, is the invoice unit values, less 1.82 per centum.

Upon the agreed facts, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f), supra, is the proper basis of' value for the telephone equipment in issue and that said value is the invoice unit values, less 1.82 per centum.

As to any other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 47693.

#### Protests 81780-K, etc., of Chesebro, Robbins & Graham, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the frozen frogs’ legs in question are similar to those the subject of *Pacific Trading Co.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 221, C. D. 610), they were held dutiable at 10 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1558 as unenumerated unmanufactured articles, as claimed.