alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SCHUCKMAN v. CASSELL.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 24, 1952.

I. R. Gumer, Louisville, for appellant.

Ollie James Cohen, Louisville, for ap-pellee.

COMBS, Justice.

The appellee, Sarah Cassell, was injured, in a fall on an unlighted stairway in ant apartment house in Louisville where she lived as a tenant of the appellant. A jury-awarded her damages in the amount of $2,-000 and this appeal is from a judgment entered on the jury’s verdict.

The sole question is whether the appellant was entitled to- a peremptory instruction in her favor. The answer to the question turns on whether appellant’s building was a “tenement house” within the meaning of Chapter 101, Kentucky Revised Statutes, which applies to cities of the first class. If it was, then appellant was under a statutory duty to have a light burning in the hall. The statute — KRS 101.010(q)— defines a tenement house as “any building, or portion thereof, that is occupied as the residence of three or more families living independently of each other, doing their cooking upon the premises, and having a common right in the halls, stairways, yard, cellar, water closets or privies, or some of them. It includes apartment and flat houses.”

The building consisted of two stories. The appellee and her son occupied the second floor. A Mr. Gibbs, whose family consisted of 'his wife and one child, lived on the first floor. Gibbs’ lease contained a prohibition against sub-leasing without the written consent of the *lessor.*In spite of the provision in his lease, Gi'bbs rented one of the first-floor rooms to his sister-in-law, Miss Broyles. It is undisputed that Miss Broyles cooked in her room and otherwise maintained a separate household of her own. All the tenants used the hallways in common, as well as the one bathroom which was located on the second floor. Miss Broyles testified that the -appellant visited in her room on a number of occasions, and it appears she had full knowledge of the arrangements under which the tenants lived.

In view of the fact three separate households were maintained in the building, with the knowledge, if not the -express consent of the appellant, and that all of the tenants used the halls, stairways, and the one bathroom in common, we are unable to escape *44the conclusion the building was a tenement house within the meaning of the statute.

Since appellant’s building was a tenement house, and since s'he failed in her statutpry duty to keep a light burning in the hall, the questions of contributory negligence and proximate cause were properly submitted to the jury. Rodgers v. Stoller, 284 Ky. 108, 143 S.W.2d 1047.

■'There is no contention the damages are excessive and we find no merit in the argument that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

' The judgment is affirmed.
#### Ex parte GOODALE.

No. 25831.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 23, 1952.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

An original application was filed by' relator in this court under Article 119, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., seeking"to secure his release from further confinement in the State Penitentiary.'

The application disclosed that he had been convicted in two cases .in Harris County; that, thereafter, he was out of confinement on parole and was arrested and convicted *in*four cases in Dallas County. The questions of fact.raised by this application were referred to the Honorable Henry King, District Judge, Dallas County, who appointed Mr. Frank Ivey, an attorney -of that city, to represent relator in conducting an examination of the records and securing other evidence to answer the questions presented to this court. Mr. Ivey filed a supplemental petition in this court enlarging on the matters set out in the original petition. Copies of the various judgments against ■him were introduced in the record and evidence taken as to the time he was held in jail in Dallas County.

It is shown that relator came to the Dallas County Jail on March 13, 1943, with four charges lodged against him;- that he was tried and convicted in each of the four cases on May 15, 1945. Two days thereafter he was picked up by an authority from the penitentiary and transferred to Huntsville. It is shown that when the charges iwere lodged against him in Dallas County in 1943 his parole was revoked by the Governor and he was held in the jail until the date of his trial by' reason of the two sentences against him'from Harris County.

*158The contention in this application is that relator is entitled to credit on his time in the two cases from Harris County from the time of the revocation of the parole in 1943 until he returned to the penitentiary on May 17, 1945. It is shown that he has not been allowed credit for such period.

It is our conclusion that he was, during that period of time, serving under the two sentences from Harris County and that he should be so credited. It appears that when he is credited with this time he will 'have served in excess of the total of eighteen years, from the date he began serving in the two cases from. Harris County, and that he should be discharged.

It is now the order of this court that the Warden of the State Penitentiary release him from further confinement in so far as he is being held under the following judgments and sentences against him: Cause No. 44096, of date October 21, 1937, and No. 44092, of date November 9, 1937, Harris County, Texas; and Cause Nos. 880’7-B, 8808-B, 8809-B and 381-B, each dated May 15, 1945, in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas. This order shall have no effect as to any other convictions for which he may be held in confinement.
| 1.     | Such annual report of Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                             |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |
| 2.     | The information contained in such annual report of Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cytosorbents Corporation |

| Date: March 31, 2011                              |
|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                              |
| CYTOSORBENTS CORPORATION                          |
|                                              |
| By: /s/ Phillip Chan                              |
| Phillip ChanPresident and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                              |

----
U.S

. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 

## 'AUG (9
. 

## 6

**~Ort4** • I

Mr. Kreg Doerr Manager, Aircraft Installation Design

and Certification Row44 820 Springer Drive Lombard, Illinois 60148 Dear Mr. Doerr: Transport Airplane Directorate 1601 Lind Avenue, S

.W. Renton, Washington 98057-3356

We have received your petition dated June 17, 2014, for a time-limited exemption from the requirements of§ 25.571(e)(l) (Amendment 25-132) ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR), related to Project ODA-GED-P066, Row 44 Wireless Broadband System Antenna Provisions Installation in Boeing 777-200 airplanes. You requested an immediate exemption from this rule and that it remain in effect for a period ofone year from the date ofsupplemental type certificate issuance. The exemption, ifgranted, would allow Row 44 the time to develop a means offull compliance with the requirements of § 25.571(e)(l). This request, which you submitted to the Department ofTransportation's Federal Docket Management System (at Regulations.gov) on June 24, 2014, has been assigned Docket No. FAA-2014-0402. We are in the process ofreviewing your request, and will contact you if we need additional information. Ifyou have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please contact Mr. Ian Won at (425) 227-2145, or by e-mail at Ian.Y.Won @faa.gov. Sincerely,



# ·

;Jv,c,;-l(j!tz"Ci"a /\

Deana M

. Stedman Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5233 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5233

       To suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur VP LS 2078/2.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

  Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur VP LS 2078/2.

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

SECTION 1. DESMODUR VP LS 2078/2.

     (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00         N,N',N''-[(2,4,6-  Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          Trioxo-1,3,5-                                                     12/31/2015
                          triazine-
                          1,3,5(2H,4H,6H)-
                          triyl)tris[methyl
                          ene(3,5,5-
                          trimethyl-3,1-
                          cyclohexanediyl)]
                          ]tris[hexahydro-2-
                          oxo-1H-azepine-1-
                          carboxamide] (CAS
                          No. 68975-83-7),
                          in organic
                          solvent (Desmodur
                          VP LS 2078/2)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3911.90.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
|                                                                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History:                                                                                            
|                                                                                                         
|Montana Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                         
|                                                                                                         
|Montana Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 6      | 56     | 0      | 325    | 1      | 7      | 0      | 13     | 55     | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 131    | 42     | 0      | 0      | 3     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 120    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### HOLLOWAY v. STATE.

No. 25192.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 7, 1951.

W. E. Martin, Abilene, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted and assessed a fine of $100 under an information and complaint charging that appellant “did then and there unlawfully drive and operate a motor vehicle upon the public roadways of the state while his drivers license was suspended.”

Appellant attacks the sufficiency of the information to charge an offense.

The prosecution appears to have been brought under the provisions of art. 6687b, Vernon’s Ann. Civil Statutes, commonly referred to as the Texas Drivers License Law, Sec. 27 thereof in part providing that no person whose operator’s, commercial operator’s or chauffeur’s license or privilege to operate a motor vehicle in this state has been suspended shall operate a motor vehicle during such suspension. Sec. 44 of such Act provides a punishment for such offense by fine not exceed $200.

The information against appellant fails to allege that .appellant had been issued either an operator’s, commercial operator’s or chauffeur’s license, or that he drove a motor vehicle while such a license was suspended.

In Hassell v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 333, 194 S.W.2d 400, an information alleging that the defendant operated a motor ve-*304hide upon - a public highway without a “drivers license” was held insufficient to charge 'an' offense since a' drivers license is not known to the law.

In Barber v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 18, 191 S.W.2d 879, a complaint charging the operation of an automobile and failure to display operator’s license on demand of a- peace officer was held insufficient to charge an offense in the absence of an allegation that accused was, on the date of the alleged offense, a. licensee.

The information being insufficient to charge an offense, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
|                                                                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                                          
|View History:                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                              
|Pennsylvania Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                              
|                                                                                                              
|Pennsylvania Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 122    | 10     | 1      | 30     | 28     | 78     | 6      | 4      | 277    | 52    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 683    | 805    | 5      | 104    | 509    | 321    | 1,747  | 5,534  | 172    | 604   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2,580  | 288    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
|                                                                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                                                         
|View History:                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                             
|No chart available.                                                                                                          
|No chart available.                                                                                                          
|                                                                                                                             
|                                                                                                                             
|California--State Offshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: May 17,2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0814 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2014S0670010 

Respondent 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

On May 2, 2016, an Order Setting Deadlines for Parties' Informal Case Discussion and 

Report, and Setting a Pre-Hearing Status Conference was filed. Among other things, this Order 

set a June 3, 2016 deadline for the parties to file a joint report regarding their informal 

discussions, and set a Pre-Hearing Status Conference for June 14, 2016. 

On May 16, 2016, the Respondent, Delta Air Lines, Inc., filed its Withdrawal of Request 

for Hearing and Answer, stating that the parties "have reached a settlement in the ... matter" and 

"request[ing] that this proceeding be dismissed with prejudice." 

After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, 

statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The June 3, 2016 deadline for the parties to file a joint report is cancelled. 

2. The Pre-Hearing Status Conference set for June 14, 2016, is cancelled. 

2. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, the Respondent has withdrawn its Request for Hearing 

and Answer, and this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachment: Service List 

Judg 

u.s. 
Docket No. FAA-2014-0814 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Mr. Christopher R. Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

1701 ColumbiaAvenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Mr. Jon-Peter F. Kelly 

Respondent's Counsel 

Assistant General Counsel 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

Department 981 

1030 Delta Boulevard 

Atlanta, GA 30354-1989 

TEL: 404-714-5631 

FAX: 404-677-2972 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.