alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14723]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLWY920000. L51040000.FI0000. 18XL5017AR]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease 
WYW087867, Wyoming

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: As provided for under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as 
amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for 
reinstatement of competitive oil and gas lease WYW087867 from Charger 
Resources LLC, EOG Resources Inc., G F Collins JR Trust, L W Moncrief 
Trust, Michael J Moncrief Grantor Trust, Mindyanne E Moncrief Trust, 
Moncrief C B, Moncrief Oil & gas Master LLC, Monty Brennan Moncrief 
Trust, Muirfield Resources Company, R B C Exploration Company, Richard 
J Moncrief 1988 Trust, RWM 1988 Trust, Ryder Stilwell Oil, T O Moncrief 
Trust, and W A Moncrief III Trust for land in Converse County, Wyoming. 
The lessee filed the petition on time, along with all rentals due since 
the lease terminated under the law. No leases affecting this land were 
issued before the petition was filed. The BLM proposes to reinstate the 
lease.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik Norelius, Acting Branch Chief for 
Fluid Minerals Adjudication, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State 
Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82003; 
phone 307-775-6176; email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6d0803021f080104182d0f0100430a021b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dbbeb5b4a9beb7b2ae9bb9b7b6f5bcb4ad">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call 
the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact Mr. 
Norelius during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a 
day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above 
individual. A reply will be sent during normal business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessees agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 per acre, or fraction 
thereof, per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee has 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and the $159 cost of 
publishing this notice. The lessee met the requirements for 
reinstatement of the lease per Sec. 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral 
Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). The BLM proposes to reinstate the 
lease effective May 1, 2015 under the original terms and conditions of 
the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 188(e)(4) and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(b)(2)(v).

Erik Norelius,
Acting Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 2018-14723 Filed 7-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-22-P


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

This court cannot presume, for the purpose of sustaining the judgment of the Circuit Court, that a plea was stricken out for some good and sufficient cause, against the affirmative showing, made by the record, that the court erred.

A plea that the bond sued on was given for the last payment of a tract of land, and that the plaintiff had not made or tendered a deed, according to his bond for title, is not a good defence, if it fails to show that the bond, which was not made a part of the record, contained mutual and dependent covenants.

*Appeal from, Desha Circuit Court.*

Hon. John C. Murray, Circuit Judge.

Weatherford for the appellant.

Garland *&*Randolph, for appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice English

delivered the opinion of the court.

Jones brought an action of debt, by petition and summons, against Farish, on a promissory note, in Desha Circuit Court. At the return term the defendant appeared, and filed two pleas, *nil*debit, and a special plea in bar. At the next term, the court struck out the first plea, sustained a demurrer to the second, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff.

For what cause the court struck out the plea of *nil debit,*does not appear. The counsel for the appellee insists that it must be presumed, for the purpose of sustaining the judgment, that the plea was stricken out for some good and sufficient cause.

*324But such presumption cannot be indulged against the affirmative showing made by the record, that the court erred. The plea was appropriate to the action — debt on an unsealed instrument— was in the usual form, signed by counsel, and appears to have been filed in good time.

The second plea alleges, in substance, that the note sued on was given for the last payment of the purchase money of four acres of land, which the plaintiff sold to defendant, and gave him a bond for a fee simple title deed; and that the deed was to be made and delivered to the defendant upon the payment of said purchase móney; but that no deed had been tendered before suit, etc.

The plea makes proferí of the bond for title, but does not set it out, or state the substance of it, nor was it brought upon the record by oyer.

The plea fails to show that the bond contained mutual and dependent covenants — or in other words, that the plaintiff was bound by the terms of the contract of sale to make or tender to defendant a deed for the land before suit for the purchase money. See *Lewis vs. Davis,*21 *Ark.,*237, *and cases cited.*

The court properly sustained a demurrer to the plea.

The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded with-instructions to the court to reinstate the appellant’s plea of *nil debit,*and that the cause progress, etc.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 19394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08310]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 9082]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Van Gogh: Irises and Roses'' and ``Masterpiece in 
Focus: Van Gogh''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the object to be 
included in the exhibition ``Van Gogh: Irises and Roses,'' at The 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, and in the exhibition ``Masterpiece in 
Focus: Van Gogh'' at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, imported from 
abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of 
cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan 
agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at The Metropolitan 
Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about May 12, 2015, until 
on or about August 16, 2015, at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, 
Minneapolis, MN, from on or about August 21, 2015, until on or about 
October 4, 2015, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet 
to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that 
Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including the 
object list, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs 
in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6471; email: section2459@state.gov). The mailing 
address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: March 30, 2015.
Evan Ryan,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-08310 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
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 May 31, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 24 2024

04/24/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0406
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 1157 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 061 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
#### O K STORAGE & TRANSFER CO., INC. v. Alonzo G. ENSENAT and Mrs. Olga R. Ensenat.

No. 62020.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: Mrs. Olga R. Ensenat applying for Certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans.

Denied.
exhibit41seventhsuppleme






Exhibit 4.1    SEVENTH SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE    between    NEWTEK BUSINESS SERVICES CORP.    and    U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,    as Trustee    Dated as of January 22, 2021  RECITALS OF THE COMPANY  





 






ARTICLE I  TERMS OF THE NOTES  Section 1.01. Terms of the Notes     





 






    provided however provided further however     





 






      plus  provided, however           





 






      ARTICLE II  DEFINITIONS AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF GENERAL APPLICATION  Section 2.01.  Section 2.02.  provided, however 





 






Section 2.03.  ARTICLE III  EXECUTION OF SECURITIES   Section 3.01.  ARTICLE IV  SATISFACTION AND DISCHARGE  Section 4.01.  





 






provided, however ARTICLE V  TRUSTEE  Section 5.01.  





 






ARTICLE VI  COVENANTS  Section 6.01.  





 






ARTICLE VII  REDEMPTION OF SECURITIES  Section 7.01.  





 






pro rata provided provided, however ARTICLE VIII  DEFEASANCE AND COVENANT DEFEASANCE  Section 8.01.  provided, however ARTICLE IX  MEETINGS OF HOLDERS OF SECURITIES  Section 9.01.  provided, however 





 






ARTICLE X  MISCELLANEOUS  Section 10.01.  Section 10.02.  Section 10.03.  Section 10.04.  Section 10.05.  Section 10.06.  Section 10.07.  





 






Section 10.08.       





 






Signature page to Seventh Supplemental Indenture NEWTEK BUSINESS SERVICES  CORP.  U.S. BANK NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION 





 






Exhibit A – Form of Global Note  Newtek Business Services Corp.  





 






provided, however provided, further,  however 





 






NEWTEK BUSINESS SERVICES  CORP.  





 






 





 






Newtek Business Services Corp.  plus  provided, however
2.2.3 U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service 

 2.2.3.1 Comment Letter 

D-29 
D-30 
D-31 
D-32 
D-33 
D-34 
D-35 
D-36 
D-37 
D-38 
D-39 
D-40 
D-41 
D-42 
D-43 
D-44
#### York/Hunter, Inc., Respondent, v Benjamin Oratz et al., Appellants.

[721 NYS2d 804]

—In an action to set aside the transfer of certain real property as fraudulent, the defendant Benjamin Oratz appeals and the defendant Westmoreland Associates separately appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated December 14, 1999, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment as there are triable issues of fact *(see,*CPLR 3212 [b]; *Liberty Co. v Boyle,*272 AD2d 380; *Glasser v Kashinsky,*237 AD2d 252; *Grumman Aerospace Corp. v Rice,*199 AD2d 365). Bracken, P. J., Goldstein, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
# C_2022463EN.01001301.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — NY v Herios SARL

(Case C-593/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 86/653/EEC - Article 17(2)(a) - Self-employed commercial agents - Termination of the agency contract by the principal - Compensation of the agent - Goodwill indemnity - Sub-agency - Right of the subagent to a proportion of the goodwill indemnity payable to the main agent corresponding to the customers brought by the subagent)

(2022/C 463/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NY

Defendant: Herios SARL

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(2)(a) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents,

must be interpreted as meaning that the goodwill indemnity which has been paid by the principal to the main agent in respect of the customer base brought by the subagent is capable of constituting, for the main agent, a substantial benefit. However, the payment of a goodwill indemnity to the subagent may be regarded as not being equitable, within the meaning of that provision, where the subagent continues his or her commercial agency business in relation to the same clients and for the same products but in the context of a direct relationship with the main principal, which replaced the main agent that had previously engaged him or her.

---

(1)  OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.

---
257 La. 857

#### Frank W. SCHULTZ v. Eugene ROBINSON.

No. 51145.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 24, 1971.

In re: Frank W. Schultz applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapi-des. 241 So.2d 921.

Writ denied. No error of law.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 542 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 542

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 26, 1994.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 4008) to authorize appropriations for the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration for fiscal years 1994 and 1995, and for other 
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour, with thirty minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and thirty minutes equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Science, Space, and Technology. After general debate the bill shall be 
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the committee 
amendments now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 5046. 
That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title rather 
than by section. Each title shall be considered as read. All points of order 
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. At the 
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 
and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 
Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in 
the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute made in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<PAGE>   1

Exhibit 23.1(b)

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-99070) pertaining to the Chicago Miniature Lamp, Inc. 1995 Incentive
and Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan of our report dated January 31, 2001, with
respect to the financial statements of Chicago Miniature Lamp (Canada), Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of SLI, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2000.



/s/ Hards Pearson

Barrie, Ontario, Canada
Chartered Accountants
March 28, 2001
#### BRINCKLEY JOHNSON and BARTHOLOMEW JOHNSON *vs.*JOSEPH W. NEALL.

On a judgment entered on a warrant of attorney to the Justice to enter judgment with stay of execution until a certain day, the defendant, though a freeholder, is not entitled to an additional stay of six months.

Certiorari. Record of a judgment entered on note and warrant of attorney to the justice to enter judgment. Execution issued.

The exception was to the regularity of the execution; that it issued against the defendant, he being a freeholder, without allowing a stay of six months.

The judgment in this case was entered on what is usually called a judgment note, which contained a warrant to the justice to enter judgment at any time after the date of the note, *with stay of execution until the*1st. *of November*1834. This judgment was entered on the 21st of March 1835, after the stay stipulated for by the note was out; and the question was, whether the defendant was entitled under the law to an additional stay of six months by reason of his freehold.

*BrincJdoe*for the Johnsons,

contended that the stay allowed by the law applied to such a case; but

*Wootten*for Neal],

insisted that the contract of the parties authorized the issuing an execution at any time after the first of November, and was therefore a waiver by the defendant of the legal stay. It was an agreement under hand and seal, that the stay of execution should terminate by a certain day: — and of this opinion were the Court.

*BrincJdoe*for plaintiffs.

*Wootten*for defendants.

Judgment affirmed.
[No. 650-1.

Division One—Panel 1.

June 21, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Elaine Callandert, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 53020, William J. Wilkins, J., entered June 5, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS OF FROZEN FOOD EXPRESS INDUSTRIES, INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          17,291
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,767
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,928
<INVENTORY>                                      9,307
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,703
<PP&E>                                          98,971
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,474
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 139,583
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,773
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,921
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,977
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   139,583
<SALES>                                         23,713
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               236,923
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  225,507
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,243
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,262
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 120
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,133
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,046
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,087
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,087
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42
        

</TABLE>