alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### B. J. Hagler, Appellant, vs. John Mercer, Appellee.

Where a clerk had failed to enter judgment on an order of court to that eifect at one term, it is proper to have it done thereafter at the nest term.

Appeal from Hillsborough. Circuit Court.

The opinion of the court contains a full statement of the faets presented by the record.

*James Gettis,*for Appellant.

*J. IL*Glover„ for Appellee.

BALTZELL, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

John Mercer instituted his action to recover of the defendant Hagler the sum due on a promissory note for $350. The defendant filed a plea, which having been withdrawn, judgment was given by *nil elicit,*and a writ of enquiry was awarded to the clerk to assess the damages. This *722was at April term, 1854. At that term the clerk died during the session of the court, having, however, entered a judgment formally, omitting and leaving a blank for the damages and amount as well as that of the costs, which it is admitted was not perfected on account of his death. At the next term, on application to the court, a judgment was entered, on motion, to supply this deficiency, inserting the amount due after an assessment by the clerk and completing the judgment as originally designed to be entered-

We have no hesitancy in saying that the court was right in granting the order asked for. It was but to complete that which had been left undone at the previous term through a dispensation of Providence, and not through the fault or laches of the party. The order was to the clerk to assess the damages and enter judgment. He omitted to assess the damages, and without this could not enter the judgment. The order, then, was unexecuted, and remained as a duty to be performed, without any further direction of the court, by his successor.

Nor was it necessary to give notice by *scire facias*to defendant. He had already admitted the debt in the declaration, the amount of the note, to be due. The addition of the interest to the principal—matter of calculation merely and purely ministerial in its character—was all that was required to ascertain the amount for which judg. m§nt should be entered. This calculation is not made on motion of the party; it is usually by the plaintiff’s attorney for the clerk, or by himself without aid.

We have spoken of the judgment in this case as by *nil dicit,*and this is its proper appellation, although the term default is used in the order. The defendant had withdrawn his plea, and said nothing further—hence the judgment was against him. The substance is to be regarded, and not the form, in considering questions of this nature. *723There are two judgments in the record: one entering the judgment as of the date of the 8th of November, 1854, to which our remarks are addressed, and which is the judgment directed to be affirmed; the other is an entry of judgment *nunc pro tunc,*which it will be the duty of the judge below to order to be vacated.

The judgment will be affirmed with costs.
PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL SUPPORT 

DOCUMENT: ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT: 

FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS 

March 2010 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Assistant Secretary 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Building Technologies Program 

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards 

Washington, DC 20585 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0016 COMMENT 25
 

This Document was prepared for the Department of Energy
 

by staff members of
 

Navigant Consulting, Inc., Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
 

and the Lighting Research Center 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0016 COMMENT 25
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 20, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 20, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15I0237. VIRASACK ATHAKHANH v. CACH, LLC.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 14A05668
No. 48250.

#### Protests 795033-G, etc., of Indo Persian Fine Art Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the mufflers in question are similar to those involved in Abstract 45938 the claim at 60 percent under paragraph 1209 was sustained.
#### ARCADIA VALLEY COUNTRY CLUB, INC. Plaintiff/Respondent, v. David E. KRUSE, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 73339.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 15, 1998.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 6,1998.

Blair Drazic, Creve Coeur, for defendant/appellant.

Lindell P. Dunivan, Farmington, for plaintiff/respondent.

Before PUDLOWSKI, P.J., and CRANDALL and AHRENS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Respondent brought an action against Appellant for specific performance and damages arising out of a contract wherein Appellant David E. Kruse agreed to perform restoration work upon a building owned by the Respondent. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Respondent ordering specific performance of the contract, ordering that Appellant have no further compensation for the performance and awarding $1,800 in damages for delay for Appellant’s failure to repair Respondent’s property. From this judgment Appellant appeals.

We have read the briefs and reviewed the legal file. We find no error of law and no jurisprudential purpose will be served by an extended written opinion. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
(Reap. Dec. 9712)

#### M. Farris & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 760956.

(Decided May 18, 1960)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Oochran Doud,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*733Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeal for a re-appraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff. The court thereupon ordered the case submitted.

Eule 5 (a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2045 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require judges of the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to reside within fifty miles 

of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 31, 2012 

Mr. BURR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require judges 

of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims to reside within fifty miles of the District of 

Columbia, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT THAT JUDGES ON UNITED 

4 STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS 

5 CLAIMS RESIDE WITHIN FIFTY MILES OF DIS6 TRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

7 (a) RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2045 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 7255 of title 38, 

2 United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

3 ‘‘§ 7255. Offices, duty stations, and residences 

4 ‘‘(a) PRINCIPAL OFFICE.—The principal office of the 

5 Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims shall be in the 

6 Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, but the Court may 

7 sit at any place within the United States. 

8 ‘‘(b) OFFICIAL DUTY STATIONS.—(1) Except as pro9 vided in paragraph (2), the official duty station of each 

10 judge while in active service shall be the principal office 

11 of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 

12 ‘‘(2) The place where a recall-eligible retired judge 

13 maintains the actual abode in which such judge custom14 arily lives shall be considered the recall-eligible retired 

15 judge’s official duty station. 

16 ‘‘(c) RESIDENCES.—(1) Except as provided in para17 graph (2), after appointment and while in active service, 

18 each judge of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

19 shall reside within 50 miles of the District of Columbia. 

20 ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to recall-eligible 

21 retired judges of the Court of Appeals for Veterans 

22 Claims.’’. 

23 (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sec24 tions at the beginning of chapter 72 of such title is 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2045 IS

1 amended by striking the item relating to section 

2 7255 and inserting the following new item: 

‘‘7255. Offices, duty stations, and residences.’’. 

3 (b) REMOVAL.—Section 7253(f)(1) of such title is 

4 amended by striking ‘‘or engaging in the practice of law’’ 

5 and inserting ‘‘engaging in the practice of law, or violating 

6 section 7255(c) of this title’’. 

7 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 

9 7255 of such title, as added by subsection (a), and 

10 the amendment made by subsection (b) shall take ef11 fect on the date that is 180 days after the date of 

12 the enactment of this Act. 

13 (2) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by 

14 subsection (b) shall apply with respect to judges con15 firmed on or after January 1, 2012. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Specifications VikingUAS X6 Model 800 Hexacopter Multirotor Platforms 

VikingUAS X6 Model 800 Multirotor Aircraft Specifications 
The VikingUAS X6 Model 800 Hexacopter is the most versatile hexacopter heavy lift 

multicopter on the planet with fixed hinge mounted booms with threaded fasteners this 

frame minimizes vibration by 60% even in temperatures below -10F and upwards of 

120F. The ease of taking a large multicopter and transporting can not be any easier for 

such a large multirotor. 
X6 Model 800 Frame Folded 
Frame Extended 

This frame is designed to be used and configured with ALL flight controllers currently on 

the market our primary flight controllers are the DJI A2 Professional, PiXHawk, DJI 

Naza V2, UTC Piccolo Multirotor. This airframe is also designed to carry and integrated 

parachute deployment system incase of a failsafe condition. Designed in America this is 

one of the premier multirotors of 2015. 
Radio Specifications 


Attaching the Mooring System 

1. The VikingUAS Mooring tether line needs to be fastened as close to the center of 

the aerial vehicles CG in order to keep the line from making contact with the 

propellers of the multi-rotor if using a balloon place as close to the center at the

bottom of the balloon or blimp. 

2. If you do not have pre-drilled 1/8” hole in your aircraft you will need to drill one 

for the 4-40 screw attachment to anchor the aluminum stand-off. 

3. Once tether is attached and line is spooled out we recommend you to practice at 

low level to get a feel for the tether on your aircraft. Each platform reacts 

differently with the line which can easily be dialed in through the gains in your 

flight control software you can do this manually through the Skylark Radio follow 

the instructions on sub-trim adjustment. The key is that your’re comfortable with 

the flight characteristics to safely operate the platform. If at any time you do not 

feel comfortable disconnect tether and seize flight operations immediately. 

4. Operation above 149 feet AGL must comply with CFR 14 Part 101.13 (a) (1) (3) (4) and 

(b) Part 101.17 (a) & (b).

5. Operation will be conducted with a minimum 150 foot Safety Perimeter where

nonparticipating personnel and property will not be allowed into the operational area.
exv10w2



 





Exhibit 10.2




EXTENSION AGREEMENT




JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,

   As U.S. Administrative Agent

   under the Credit Agreement

   referred to below

270 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10017




Gentlemen:



     The undersigned hereby agrees to extend, effective September 21, 2007, the Maturity Date under
the Credit Agreement dated as of November 4, 2005 (as amended from time to time, the “Credit
Agreement”) among SYSCO Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), SYSCO International,
Co., the Lenders party thereto, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as U.S. Administrative Agent (the “U.S.
Administrative Agent”), JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Toronto Branch, as Canadian Administrative
Agent, for one year to November 4, 2012. Terms defined in the Credit Agreement are used herein
with the same meaning.



     This Extension Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the
State of New York.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Lender:

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Name:  	 	 
	 	 	Title:  	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	Agreed and accepted:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	SYSCO CORPORATION	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

Name:
	 	 
	 

	 	Title:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as U.S.

    Administrative Agent	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

Name:
	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
No. 47108.

#### Protest 899832-G of Bullocks, Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Bullocks*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 110, C. D. 441) the merchandise in question was held not subject to countervailing duty as claimed.
PUBLIC LAW 111–132—JAN. 29, 2010 123 STAT. 3491 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3539: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009): 

Nov. 16, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 21, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–132 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 427 Harrison 

Avenue in Harrison, New Jersey, as the ‘‘Patricia D. McGinty-Juhl Post Office 

Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. PATRICIA D. MCGINTY-JUHL POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 427 Harrison Avenue in Harrison, New Jersey, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Patricia D. McGinty-Juhl 

Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Patricia D. McGinty-Juhl Post Office Building’’. 

Approved January 29, 2010. 

Jan. 29, 2010 

[H.R. 3539] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with PUBLIC LAWS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40343-40344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19755]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-422-000]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

July 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 18, 1997, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), tendered for filing to become part of Northern's FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet proposed 
to become effective on August 17, 1997:

Third Revised Sheet No. 258

    Northern states that this filing eliminates the tariff provision 
that allows acceptance of nominations by telephone.
    Northern states that copies of the filing were served upon 
Northern's customers and interested State Commissions.

[[Page 40344]]

    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such petitions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken in this proceeding, but will not serve 
to make Protestant a party to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19755 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit
      32.2




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




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Huifeng Bio-Pharmaceutical Technology,
      Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Sanding Tao, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




1.
      The
      Report 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 Company.




Date:
      November 15, 2006





/S/
      Sanding Tao


Sanding
      Tao


Chief
      Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 90 (Thursday, May 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26076-26077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10226]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: NOAA Satellite Ground Station Customer Questionnaire.
    Form Number(s): None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0227.
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Burden Hours: 17.
    Number of Respondents: 102.
    Average Hours per Response: 15 minutes.
    Needs and Uses: NOAA requests people who operate ground receiving 
stations that receive data from NOAA satellites to complete a 
questionnaire about the types of data received, its use, the equipment 
involved, and similar subjects. The data obtained are used by NOAA for 
short-term operations and long-term planning. The collection of this 
data assists NOAA in complying with the terms of the Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) with the World Meteorological Organization 
Administration (NOAA) and other international agreements.
    Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; individuals or 
households; State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d7b39faeb9b2bc97b3b8b4f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b7f5362757e705b7f7478357c746d">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed

[[Page 26077]]

information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of 
this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number (202) 395-
7285, or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#296d485f404d767b465a5d424c5b6946444b074c4659074e465f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="337752455a576c615c4047585641735c5e511d565c431d545c45">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: May 5, 2008.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-10226 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2016314EN.01003502.xml

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/35

---

Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Virgin Media v Commission

(Case T-460/12) (1)

1

(2016/C 314/48)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.

1

---
No. 48231.

#### Protest 96700-K of Bergdorf & Goodman Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 45938 the silk mufflers in question were held dutiable as claimed. Protest sustained as to this item.
No. 39197.

#### Petition 5462-R of J. A. Forrest Co. (Pembina).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Under the circumstances surrounding these entries the court was convinced that the importer was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States, to conceal or misrepresent the facts, or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise, and was diligent in endeavoring to enter his goods at the prevailing prices on the dates of shipment. The petition was therefore granted.