alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### W. J. LILES v. Clartis D. HOUPT, Adult N.C.M. By and Through His Guardian, Billy G. Houpt.

No. 49947.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 5, 1978.

Gibson & Newlin, Donald F. Newlin, Bruce, for appellant.

Robert L. Williams, Water Valley, for appellee.

LEE, J.,

for the Court.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., SUGG, WALKER, BROOM and BOWLING, JJ., concur.

COFER, J., took no part.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Former DSCP commander to gain fourth star, command AMC

DLA Troop Support Public Affairs

                PHILADELPHIA  –              

Congress has confirmed Army Lt. Gen. Gustave Perna, former Defense Supply Center Philadelphia commander, to be appointed to the rank of general.

Perna served as commander of the DLA Troop Support legacy organization from July 2008 to October 2009. He serves now as the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, U.S. Army in Washington, D.C. and will be assigned as the commanding general of the U.S. Army Materiel Command at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.

“LTG Perna has always been a great asset in continuing the relationship between DLA and the Army,” wrote Army Brig. Gen. Charles Hamilton, DLA Troop Support’s current commander, in an email to the workforce. “He continues to be an advocate, supporting us across all supply chains, which in turn helps us provide superior support to soldiers across the globe.”

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1) | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78m(a) or 78o(d),                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:  September                10, 2007 | /s/                Robert S. Hekemian                                           |
|----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                               | Robert                S. Hekemian                                               |
|                                               | Chairman                of the Board and Chief Executive                Officer |
<PAGE>   1
                                                               EXHIBIT 10-Z(vii)





                           PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT


                  FOR PARTICIPATION BY RELATED GROUP MEMBERS
                            (PLAN SECTION 1.1(KK))



        The undersigned Employer, by executing this Participation Agreement,
elects to become a Participating Employer in the Plan, as if the Participating
Employer were a signatory to the Adoption Agreement.  The Participating
Employer accepts, and agrees to be bound by, all of the elections granted under
the provisions of the Plan as made by Bindley Western Industries, Inc.,
Employer of the Adoption Agreement ("Signatory Employer").

(1)     The Effective Date of the undersigned Employer's participation in the
        designated Plan is:  August 8, 1997

(2)     The undersigned Employer's adoption of this Plan constitutes:

        (a)  The adoption of a new plan by the Participating Employer.

        (b)  The adoption of an amendment and restatement of a plan currently
             maintained by the Employer, identified as Bindley Western
             Industries, Inc. &  Subsidiaries Profit Sharing Plan and
             having an original effective date of January 1, 1979.

        In Witness Whereof, the Employer and the Trustee, by their respective
duly authorized officers, have caused this Adoption Agreement to be executed on
this 1st day of March, 1998.

Groveway Pharmacy                       Key Trust Company of Indiana, NA
------------------------------------    -------------------------------------
(Name of Participating Employer)        (Name Of Trustee)

By: /s/ Michael D. McCormick            By: /s/ April M. Czenkusch
------------------------------------    -------------------------------------
Sec.                                      V.P.
------------------------------------    -------------------------------------
(Title)                                 (Title)

Bindley Western Industries, Inc.
------------------------------------
(Name of Signatory Employer)

By: /s/ Thomas J. Salentine
------------------------------------

Exec. V.P. & CFO
------------------------------------

(Title)



NOTE:  Each Participating Employer must execute a separate Participation
       Agreement.  See the notes at the end of the Adoption Agreement for
       important prototype plan information.
exh6-2_confirmation.htm


     

    
      

      

    

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    EXHIBIT
      6.2

     

    CONFIRMATION
      OF AGREEMENT WITH LEROY HALTERMAN

    DATED
      AUGUST 1, 2007

     

     

     

     

    
 

    
      
         

      

      
         

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    


    Leroy
      Halterman, CPG, RPG

    820
      Piedra Vista NE

    Albuquerque,
      NM  87123

    (505)
      235-4467

    


    August
      1,
      2007

    


    Mr.
      Armando Garcia, President

    Homeland
      Resources Ltd.

    6801
      Los
      Trechos NE

    Albuquerque
      New Mexico, 87109

    


    Dear
      Mr.
      Garcia:

    


    This
      letter is to confirm our conversation retaining my professional services for
      Homeland’s Phase 1 Program on the HR #1-6 Claims, located in Luna County, New
      Mexico.  I will start immediately by submitting a plan of operations
      to the BLM.  Although there will be no significant impact to the land,
      it is always good practice to do this prior to any program.  My
      schedule should allow me to start on this project within the next three to
      four
      weeks.  As outlined in the report, with minor variations, he Phase I
      program will be limited to defining drill targets for the Phase II
      program.  It is anticipated to cost approximately
      $12,100.  The following discussion gives a brief description of the
      Phase I program:

    


    1.           Additional
      mapping and sampling to confirm earlier sampling and to better target drill
      holes to test untested mineralized areas of the Home Ranch Prospect claim
      block.

    


    2.           Perform
      close spaced geochemical soil sampling across the entire staked area. This
      type
      of sampling would collect samples from approximately 1-2 feet below the surface
      and have them tested for gold, silver, molybdenum antimony, mercury and
      arsenic.

    


    I
      will
      stay in touch with you concerning the status of the plan of operations, the
      laboratory selected to run the samples, and the final scheduling of the
      project.

    


    Sincerely,

    


    /s/ Leroy Halterman


    


    Leroy
      Halterman

    


    Leroy
      Halterman

    Register
      Professional Geologist, WY 1226

    Certified
      Professional Geologist, 3444
Upon consideration of the Record on Appeal, together with the Written and Oral Arguments of counsel,

Chief Justice Rice, Justice Coats, and Justice Hood are of the opinion that the judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals, announced June 27, 2013, in 2010 CA 1584 should be affirmed, whereas Justice Eid, Justice Márquez, and Justice Boatrightare of the opinion that it should be reversed.

Since the court is equally divided, the decision of the Colorado Court of Appeals is affirmed by operation of law. See C.A.R. 35 (e).

BY THE COURT, EN BANC, MAY 10, 2016. JUSTICE GABRIEL does not participate.
122 STAT. 3722 PUBLIC LAW 110–333—SEPT. 30, 2008 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 3241 (H.R. 6772): 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate. 

Sept. 23, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–333 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1717 Orange 

Avenue in Fort Pierce, Florida, as the ‘‘CeeCee Ross Lyles Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CEECEE ROSS LYLES POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

Service located at 1717 Orange Avenue in Fort Pierce, Florida, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘CeeCee Ross Lyles 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 ‘‘CeeCee Ross Lyles Post Office Building’’. 

Approved September 30, 2008. 

Sept. 30, 2008 

[S. 3241] 


dkrause on GSDDPC44 with PUBLIC LAWS
*This appeal is successive to Appeal 04

‐ 2045 and has been submitted to this panel under

Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that

oral argument is unnecessary. The appeal, therefore, is submitted on the briefs and record. 

# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted September 15, 2010*

Decided November 8, 2010

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ] Appeal from the United

Plaintiff-Appellee, ] States District Court for

] the Northern District of

No. 10-2020 v. ] Illinois, Eastern Division.

]

TERRELL AGEE, ] No. 1:99-cr-00397-7

Defendant-Appellant. ]

] Wayne R. Andersen, Judge.

O R D E R

There is only one question we need to resolve in this appeal. Did the district

court abuse its discretion when it denied Terrell Agee’s second motion to reduce

sentence? The answer is an unqualified “No”. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 10

‐ 2020 Page 2

Agee’s second motion, just like his first, sought a sentence reduction under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the Sentencing Commission’s amended Sentencing

Guideline for crack cocaine. In its order denying Agee’s first motion, the district court

pointed out that “Agee was re

‐ sentenced [on June 5, 2008] using the amended statute”

and therefore “is not entitled to a reduction in sentence”. See Order of July 29, 2009.

We dismissed Agee’s appeal of this order because it was untimely. See Appeal

No. 09

‐ 3203.

The district court thought Agee’s second motion, filed within weeks of this

court’s dismissal of Appeal No. 09

‐ 3203 as untimely, was a belated attempt to seek

review of both his sentence and the denial of his first motion to reduce sentence.

Further, the court again pointed out that “the revised guidelines [on cocaine base] were

already taken into account when determining Agee’s current sentence”. See Order of

April 12, 2010.

Agee’s brief presents no argument to suggest that either explanation for the

denial of his second motion to reduce sentence (the only order under review), let alone

both explanations, constituted an abuse of discretion. His conclusory claim that one of

the two reasons for denying his motion is “untrue” is insufficient. As such, we can

hardly say that the district court abused its discretion in denying Agee’s second motion

to reduce sentence. See United States v. Hall

, 600 F.3d 872, 875

‐ 76 (7th Cir. 2010) ; United

States v. Young

, 555 F.3d 611, 615 (7th Cir. 2009).

The order of the district court is AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 

40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, 2.1(g) 
® 

I hereby certify that: 

Thomas S. Burack, Commissioner 

CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC PROCESS 

In accordance with N.H. Admin. Rule Env-A 204.01(b) and 40 CFR § 51 .102, public 

notice was given that the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Air 

Resources Division (DES), intended to submit for the approval of the U.S . Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) revisions to the New Hampshire State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) which added and amended Env-A 1500: Conformity. The existing rule establishes 

requirements for a consultative process relative to conformity determinations . The 

proposed rule readopts Env-A 1500 with minor edits and clarifications . 

A public hearing on the Rules and the SIP revision was held on July 26, 2011 at 10:00 

a.m., at DES, Rooms 110 and 111, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH. Opportunity was 

provided to receive oral comments during the hearing, and written comments at any time 

from June 24, 2011, up to 4 :00 p.m. on Friday, August 5, 2011, for consideration by the 

DES in making a final decision. Since no members of the public appeared for the 

hearing, no record of the public hearing was made on tape. 

A copy of the SIP revision was available for public inspection at the DES offices at 29 

Hazen Drive, Concord, NH during regular working hours from 8 :00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, throughout the comment period . The SIP revision was also 

available for downloading from the DES website at : 

http ://des .nh. ov/organization/commissioner/legal/rulemaking/index .htm. 

The notice was published in the Union Leader, a newspaper of general, statewide 

circulation, on Friday, June 24, 2011, more than thirty days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

The above statements are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

Robert R. Scott 

Director, Air Resources Division 

I 2- pe-GG / j 

Date 

The State of New Hampshire 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

DES Web site : www.des.nh.gov 

P.O. Box 95, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03302-0095 

Telephone: (603) 271-1370 " Fax: (603) 271-1381 " TDD Access : Relay NH 1-800-735-2964
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0490 Directorate ID: 2008-SW-004-AD

Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Model 407 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 472 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to alert pilots to avoid certain engine speeds during 

steady-state operations, prevent failure of the third stage engine turbine, engine power loss, and 

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $20 for the decal

Labor per Helicopter

(0.5 work-hour x 

$85/work-hour to update 

the RFM)

(0.2 work-hour x 

$85/work-hour to install 

the decal)

$43

$17

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $80

Total US Fleet Cost $37,760

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Chinh Vuong
No. 39270.

#### Protest 939616-G of Nippon Trading Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Borgfeldt*v. *United States*(T. D. 48585) the wooden forks in question were held dutiable at 33% percent under paragraph 412 as claimed and incense similar to that passed upon in *Woolworth*v. *United States*(T. D. 47647) was held free of duty under paragraph 1703.
EXHIBIT 10.57  


 


 


 


 


Promissory Note  


 


 





	
            $237,903.00  
 	
            10% Interest Per Annum
 





 


 


Pursuant to this Promissory Note (“Note”), dated this 8th day of August 2007, Hydrogen Power, Inc., (“HPI”) a corporation, for value received, agrees to pay to Global Hydrofuel Technologies, Inc. (“GHTI”) the sum of two hundred thirty seven thousand and nine hundred three dollars, ($237,903.00) the “principal amount”, together with interest starting August 1, 2007 on the unpaid principal balance at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum.  Payment of interest only is due each month in the amount of $1,982.53.  The first interest payment is due September 1, 2007. Subsequent interest payments are due on the 1st day of each succeeding month.  The principal amount shall be due on December 15, 2007. This Promissory Note is in consideration for the remaining amount due by HPI in 2007 for license fees due under the Sublicense Agreement and Consent
between GHTI and HPI.


 


This Note may be prepaid at any time or from time to time in whole or in part without penalty, premium or permission.
Appendix 10 

Refrigerant Capacities

0.0

500.0

1000.01500.02000.02500.03000.03500.0

-40 -30 -20 -10 0

Evaporating Temperature (degC)

Capacity (kJ/m^3) R

RR
#### MAJOR MARKETING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. William HAYNES, Respondent.

No. 77-2063.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 14, 1978.

James M. Corrigan of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, Orlando, for petitioner.

T. M. Burke of Pitts, Eubanks, Ross & Rumberger, P.A., Orlando, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for writ of certiorari denied.

ANSTEAD, DAUKSCH and LETTS, JJ., concur.
# C_2015107EN.01000201.xml

| 30.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 February 2015 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-172/13) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 TFEU - Article 31 of the EEA Agreement - Corporation tax - Groups of companies - Group relief - Transfer of losses sustained by a non-resident subsidiary - Conditions - Date to be used for determining whether the losses of the non-resident subsidiary are definitive))

(2015/C 107/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Kaye, S. Brighouse and A. Robinson, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Ewart QC and S. Ford, Barrister)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González and A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

| 3) | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

---