alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



EXECUTION COPY
 PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
 BY AND BETWEEN
 WELL-PROP (MULTI) LLC,
  AND
 LTF REAL ESTATE COMPANY, INC.
   Property:
    
    
    1.
    
    
    6701 West 78th Street, Edina, MN2.
    
    
    Lake Breeze Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN3.
    
    
    14600 Burnhaven Drive, Burnsville, MN4.
    
    
    1201 South Ford Road, Minnetonka, MNDated: July 26, 2006




---



##### 



PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
 THIS PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT Agreement th WELL-PROP (MULTI) LLC, Seller LTF REAL ESTATE COMPANY,
INC. Buyer
 W I T N E S S E T H
    Definitions
 Closing
 Improvements
 Land Exhibit A
 Property
 Purchase and Sale of Property
 Purchase Price for Property Lease
 2




---



##### 



Closing
 (a)
    
    The Closing shall take place on July 26, 2006.(b)
    
    Settlement-Seller. At the Closing, Seller shall deliver to Buyer:
 ;
       (c)
    
    Settlement-Buyer. At the Closing, Buyer shall deliver to Seller:
   Title and Condition of Property; Due Diligence Review; Indemnification of Seller
 State of Title Permitted Exceptions
 Condition of Property AS IS, WHERE IS CONDITION, WITH ALL FAULTS.
 3




---



##### 



Hazardous Substances Environmental Laws et seq. et seq. , et seq. et seq. et seq. et seq.
 BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT AS BETWEEN BUYER AND SELLER, BUYER HAS RELIED AND WILL BE RELYING ON ITS
OWN DUE DILIGENCE REVIEW IN PURCHASING THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING PHYSICAL INSPECTIONS OF THE
PROPERTY, AND THAT THE SAME IS BEING PURCHASED SOLELY IN RELIANCE UPON SUCH DUE DILIGENCE REVIEW,
AND FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY
WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE, HAVE BEEN MADE OR WILL BE MADE BY OR ON
BEHALF OF SELLER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OR THE PHYSICAL CONDITION THEREOF. ADA Released Parties Claims
 4




---



##### 



6.
    
    Prorations and Allocation of Expenses.
 Prorations
 Sellers Costs and Expenses Escrow
Agent
 Buyers Costs and Expenses
 Other Costs and Expenses
 7.
    
    Miscellaneous Provisions.
 Brokers
 Intentionally Omitted.
 5




---



##### 



Assignment; Binding Effect
 Captions
 Entire Agreement; Recording
 Time of Essence
 Cooperation
 Governing Law
 Counterparts
 Severability
 6




---



##### 



Remainder of page left blank intentionally
 7




---



##### 



SELLER:WELL-PROP (MULTI) LLC, a Delawarelimited liability companyBy: WELL-MEZ (MULTI) LLC,Delaware limited liability company,its sole memberBy: WELL (MULTI) QRS 15-17, INC.,a Delaware corporation,its managing memberBy:Title:BUYER:LTF REAL ESTATE COMPANY, INC.,a Minnesota corporationBy:Title:




---



##### 



Legal Description of the Property
#### David GAMBLE, Petitioner, v. HARRISON CONSTRUCTION, Royal Globe Insurance Company and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 38684.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 16, 1969.

Wheeler & Evans, Miami, for petitioner.

Lloyd W. Jabara, of Williams & Jabara, Miami, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari, we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date May 6, 1969.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

The petition is therefore denied.

Petitioner’s application for attorney’s fees is also denied.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 176 (Thursday, September 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24153]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Geological Survey


Request for Public Comments on Information Collection To Be 
Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for Review Under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act

    A request revising and extending the collection of information 
listed below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
for approval under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of the Proposed collection of information 
and related forms may be obtained by contacting the Bureau's Clearance 
Officer at the phone number listed below. Comments and suggestions on 
the requirement should be made within 60 days directly to the Bureau 
Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 807 National Center, Reston, 
VA 20192.
    As required by OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), the U.S. 
Geological Survey solicits specific public comments regarding the 
proposed information collection as to:
    1. Whether the collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the functions of the bureau, including whether 
the information will have practical utility;
    2. The accuracy of the bureau's estimate of the burden of the 
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology 
and assumptions used;
    3. The utility, quality, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and,
    4. How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated 
electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology.
    Title: Portland and Masonry Cement.
    OMB approval number: 1028-New.
    Abstract: Respondents supply the U.S. Geological Survey with data 
on cement shipments to final customers. This information will be 
published as monthly reports for use by Government agencies, industry, 
and the general public.
    Bureau form number: 6-1215-M.
    Frequency: Monthly.
    Description of respondents: Commercial and importers of portland 
and masonry cement.
    Annual Responses: 600.
    Annual burden hours: 300.
    Bureau clearance officer: John E. Cordyack, Jr., 703-648-7313.
John H. DeYoung, Jr.,
Chief Scientist, Minerals Information Team.
[FR Doc. 97-24153 Filed 9-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-31-M
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135237 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135237 

 COA: 280753 

Branch CC: 98-066617-FH 

MIGUEL DIAZ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 23, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0421 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 28, 2008 

 Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23803]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-498-000]


Steuben Gas Storage Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

September 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 29, 1997, Steuben Gas Storage Company 
(Steuben) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original 
Volume No. 1 and Original Volume No. 2, tariff sheets listed on 
Appendix A to the filing, to be effective September 1, 1997.
    Steuben states that this filing is being made to implement changes 
to its Volume 1 and Volume 2 tariff to conform with the revisions made 
to Part 154 of the Commissions regulations pursuant to Order Nos. 582 
and 582-A. Steuben has requested a waiver of the thirty (30) day notice 
period to allow the tariff sheet to become effective on September 1, 
1997.
    Steuben states that copies of the filing were served upon the 
company's jurisdictional customers.
    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, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions 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, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties 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 public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23803 Filed 9-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0406

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

DAVID ALLEN PEIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 20, 2024, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 3 2024

10/03/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0406
### Reconnaissance of ground-water conditions in Maine

By: Glenn C. Prescott

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1669T

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### Linda Darley BREAZELLE v. Donald Wayne EZELL, Jr.

No. 49540.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 3, 1977.

Eppes & Shannon, Walter W. Eppes, Jr., Meridian, for appellant.

Richard E. Wilbourn, Don 0. Rogers, Meridian, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; Lester F. Williamson, Judge.

Before INZER, P. J., and ROBERTSON and WALKER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH, P. J., and SUGG, BROOM and LEE, JJ., concur.
May 20, 2015

Candy Factory Productions

Mr. Jason Ward

114 Middle Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY 12866

Dear Mr. Jason Ward:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your March 25th, 2015 exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0759), but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### Mrs. Louise I. WINTERS v. DEPOSIT GUARANTY NATIONAL BANK, Executor and Trustee.

No. 49619.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 5, 1977.

Rex K. Jones, Hattiesburg, for appellant.

Burgin, Gholson, Hicks & Nichols, Ralph E. Rood, Columbus, for appellee.

Before INZER, P. J., and ROBERTSON and BOWLING, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES W. CORNELL, :

: Case No. 4:05-cv-0262

Plaintiff, :

: (Judge Jones)

v. :

:

SEVERN TRENT ENVIRONMENTAL :

SERVICES, INC., D/B/A SEVERN :

TRENT PIPELINE SERVICES :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

July 13, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Severn Trent

Environmental Services Inc.’s Motion to Stay Discovery Pending a Ruling on

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 16). Also pending, but not

yet ripe, is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 11). As

Defendant’s Motion may be dispositive of this action, we will grant a stay of

discovery until such time as the Court can rule on Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment.

Case 4:05-cv-00262-JEJ Document 21 Filed 07/13/05 Page 1 of 2
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery Pending a Ruling on

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 16) is

GRANTED to the extent that discovery in this case shall be stayed for

thirty (30) days from the date of this order.

2. The discovery deadline in this case of November 18, 2005 remains

unchanged.

S/ John E. Jones III 

John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00262-JEJ Document 21 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 2
#### Mary Lou GARMON, Appellant, v. Jack Milton GARMON, Appellee.

No. HH-246.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 19, 1978.

*488Robert B. Staats, Panama City, for appellant.

William E. Harris, Panama City, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The subject of this appeal is the trial court’s award to the husband of the wife’s interest in a jointly-owned 32-foot yacht. The award is erroneous because the husband did not plead special equity or other theory justifying the award to him of the wife’s interest. A trial court’s authority to effect a change in the title of jointly-owned property in a dissolution is restricted to an award of lump sum alimony, a determination of a special equity, a partition of the property, or a division based on the agreement of the parties. *Niemann v. Niemann,*294 So.2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). On dissolution of the marriage here, the parties became tenants in common of the yacht.

Accordingly, the judgment awarding the yacht to the husband is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
# San Joaquin Marketing and Media Support Team wins DLA Enterprise Safety Excellence award

/ Published Jan. 22, 2019
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
DLA Distribution San Joaquin, California’s Marketing and Media Support Team was honored with the DLA Enterprise Safety Excellence award during the agency’s 51st annual employee recognition ceremony Dec. 13 held at fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Since the San Joaquin installation began its Occupational Safety and Health Administration Voluntary Protection Program journey in 2009, the MAMS team has been committed to providing multimedia support and marketing efforts to enhance the installation’s Safety and Occupational Health Program by supporting the four elements of the OSHA VPP, to include: management leadership and employee involvement, worksite analysis, hazard prevention and control, and safety and health training.  

Throughout the past year, the MAMS team worked tirelessly to spread Team San Joaquin’s focused philosophy regarding a “safety first” culture, and a “One Site–One Flag–One Team” motto.  

During the 2018 OSHA Safe and Sound Week, the team helped host a safety event for all employees.  The week consisted of daily safety briefs in all work centers, where topics included: Housekeeping, Defensive Driving, Industrial Hygiene, Safety at Home and Ergonomics/Proper Lifting and culminated in a Safety Carnival, during which employees put their newly-gained safety knowledge to a test while participating in carnival themed activities.  

The team also created the “VPP Star Central” newsletter. The quarterly publication contains information on injury and illness prevention tips (both on and off duty) and serves as a conduit for public recognition of employee contributions to the safety conditions in their work areas.  

In line with promoting a culture of safety at work and home, the MAMS team created “Why I Work Safe Buttons” and encouraged employees to create personalized buttons with pictures of their family, friends, or co-workers to serve as a reminder of their loved ones waiting for them to return from work safely.

According to DLA Distribution San Joaquin, California, commander, Marine Col. Andre Harrell, the team’s efforts have been a boon to increasing awareness and decreasing hazards.  

“Their efforts directly contributed to a 30 percent reduction in Material Handling Equipment mishaps and a remarkable 25 percent reduction in total mishaps.  I’m extremely proud of this elite team and its unwavering commitment toward safety,” said Harrell.
254 La. 1099

#### Frank J. D’AMICO v. Joseph C. CANIZARO.

No. 50195.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 19, 1969.

In re: Joseph C. Canizaro applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 226 So.2d 547.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue ; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


I, James Clark, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Mind2Market, 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. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and 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 us 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 September 30, 2003; and

     c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
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 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

<PAGE>

     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. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  August 24, 2004

/s/ James Clark
- -----------------------
James Clark, CEO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAVID E. DOHERTY, SR., : 4:CV-05-1249

:

Plaintiff, : (Judge McClure)

:

v. : (Magistrate Judge Smyser)

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, :

Commissioner of Social Security, :

:

Defendant. :

O R D E R

March 3, 2006

The plaintiff has brought this action under the authority of 42 U.S.C. §

405(g) to obtain judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social

Security denying the plaintiff’s claims for disability insurance benefits and

supplemental security income. 

The case was initially referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Andrew

Smyser.

Magistrate Judge Smyser filed an eleven-page report and recommendation on

February 9, 2006. He concluded with the recommendation that the case should be

remanded to the Commissioner for reconsideration of the testimony of plaintiff’s

girlfriend Denise Smeltzer, the credibility of the plaintiff as to his symptoms and

limitations, and the medical evidence. 

Case 4:05-cv-01249-JFM Document 13 Filed 03/03/06 Page 1 of 2
2

On February 23, 2006, the Commissioner waived the opportunity to object

to the report and recommendation.

The court agrees with the analysis and recommendation of the magistrate

judge, and will order a remand.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge J.

Andrew Smyser (Rec. Doc. No. 11-1) is approved and adopted in full

for the reasons set forth therein.

2. The case is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for

reconsideration of the testimony of plaintiff’s girlfriend Denise

Smeltzer, the credibility of the plaintiff as to his symptoms and

limitations, and the medical evidence.

3. The clerk is directed to close the case file.

_________________

James F. McClure, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01249-JFM Document 13 Filed 03/03/06 Page 2 of 2