alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### City of Milwaukee, Respondent, vs. Heyer and others, Defendants: Struck and wife, Appellants.

*May 7*

June *1, 1942.*

*57For the appellants there was a brief by *Robert J. Buer*and *William H.*Bowman, both of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Buer.*

For the respondent there was'a brief by *Walter J. Mattison,*city attorney, and *Ronold A.*Drechsler, assistant city attorney, and oral argument by *Mr. Drechsler.*

Fowler, J.

The case is an appeal from an order sustaining demurrers by the city to four separate alleged defenses contained in the answer of the defendant Struck and from an order denying a summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to the land involved in these separate defenses. The complaint is for condemnation of a tract of land.by the city. The tract is located on a peninsula known as Jones Island which has been the source of much litigation which has reached this court between the Illinois Steel Company and numerous squatters thereon who have claimed title through adverse possession. All squatters so claiming are made parties defendant in the instant proceeding, one of whom is the defendant *58Struck. Struck demurred to- the complaint for insufficiency of facts, his demurrer was overruled, and the ruling was affirmed on appeal by this court in *Milwaukee v. Heyer,*238 Wis. 583, 300 N. W. 217.

Upon careful consideration of the several separate answers demurred to we are unable to perceive anything in the contentions of the appellants respecting them that is not covered by our decision when the case was first before us. The demurrers are therefore disposed of under the rule of the law of the case.

As to the motion for summary judgment, the same affidavits are submitted in support of the motions for summary dismissal on all four defenses. The only fact relied on in support of these motions is a statement in the affidavit of Struck that the city claims to own the strip of land referred to in two of the defenses demurred to and the statement in his and two other affidavits that in a previous action of Struck v. Milwaukee, involving the strip, dismissed on a motion of non-suit, the city in its answer claimed to own the strip. The answer of Struck in the first separate defense herein specifically alleges that he is the owner of the whole tract the city seeks ,to condemn. The point of the motion is that the city is seeking to condemn land which it already owns, and that this it cannot do. It is fundamental that motions for summary judgment will not be granted where there is any disputed question of fact involved. *Atlas Investment Co. v. Christ,*240 Wis. 114, 2 N. W. (2d) 714. Struck’s affidavit and his first separate answer disclose that there is upon his own allegations a disputed question of fact as to who owns the strip. In this situation the court properly dismissed the motion.

*By the Court.*— The orders of the circuit court are affirmed.

Fritz, J., took no part.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 302 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
                                 S. 302

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2000

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
              For the relief of Kerantha Poole-Christian.

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

SECTION 1. CLASSIFICATION AS A CHILD UNDER THE IMMIGRATION AND 
              NATIONALITY ACT.

    (a) In General.--In the administration of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, Kerantha Poole-Christian shall be classified as a 
child within the meaning of section 101(b)(1)(E) of such Act, upon 
approval of a petition filed on her behalf by Clifton or Linette 
Christian, citizens of the United States, pursuant to section 204 of 
such Act.
    (b) Limitation.--No natural parent, brother, or sister, if any, of 
Kerantha Poole-Christian shall, by virtue of such relationship, be 
accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.

            Passed the Senate November 19, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 201 (Thursday, October 17, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 83755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23933]


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

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD


30-Day Notice of Intent To Seek Reinstatement Without Change: 
Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency 
Service Delivery; Correction

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (Board) published a document 
in the Federal Register on October 3, 2024, concerning the Board's 
intent to request from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
approval without change of the Generic Clearance for the Collection of 
Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Oehrle, PRA Officer, Surface 
Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0b7b796a4b787f69256c647d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c8b8baa988bbbcaae6afa7be">[email protected]</span></a>. If you require an accommodation under the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, please call (202) 245-0245.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of October 3, 2024, in FR Doc. 2024-22813, 
in 89 FR 80624. On page 80625, in the first column, in the SUMMARY 
heading, the first sentence correcting the following language 
``approval without change of the six existing collections described 
below'' to read, ``approval without change of the existing collection 
described below.'' Due to this inadvertent error, comments on the 
original information collection will be accepted if submitted by 
November 18, 2024.

    Dated: October 11, 2024.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2024-23933 Filed 10-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Acropolis Precious Metals, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A-1 for the period ended July 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Walter Brenner, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | The Report 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   
|    | Dated this 22ndday of October, 2007.                                                                                                                 
|   

WALTER BRENNERWalter Brenner, President and Chief Executive Officer

















---
#### Estate of Kerwin: Gustafson and others, Appellants, vs. Kerwin, Respondent.

*September 10*

October *22, 1946.*

*249For the appellants there were briefs by *Adams & Adams*. of Beloit, and oral argument by *H. W. Adams.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Dougherty, Grubb & Ryan*of Janesville, and oral argument by *W. H. Dougherty.*

RosenbeRry, C. J.

With respect to the competency of the testator, there was the testimony of lay and expert witnesses and this was true also of the contention that the testator had been subject to undue influence on the part of William E. Kerwin.

The court gave very careful consideration to the case, made an extended statement of the facts established by the evidence, considered the questions of law raised on the trial and made conclusions of law upon all contested questions.

It would serve no useful purpose to set out in this opinion a synopsis of the facts. It would require many pages and,no matter how carefully done, would be unsatisfactory when done! We have carefully considered the evidence and the questions raised in briefs of counsel for the objectors and we are of the opinion that the evidence fully sustains the findings of the court and that the findings support the conclusions of law reached by the trial court.

*250While there is a good deal of conflict in the opinion evidence as to the coihpetency of the testator, the state of the record is such that it cannot be said that the findings of the trial court are contrary to the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.

Upon the question of undue influence upon the testator by William E. Kerwin, we find no substantial evidence, sustaining the position of the objectors. It is true that they were brothers. It is also true that they had a common deposit box but we are strongly impressed by the evidence that the deceased was the dominant character of the two. Pie does not appear to have been subject to undue influence. On the contrary, he appears to have had his way in most matters concerning the family.

Upon the whole case, it is considered that the. judgment is right and should be affirmed.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
6/17/15 Page of



### POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

Summary Page

Ch emical ID: P-14-0501 Re viewe r: Wong/BC

Endpoints- Assessed Table

Endpoints/Assessment

Cycles 1 Releases

Assessed in

NCEM2? Reasons for not assessing releases

No XB

Testing

Required No

Hazard

Concern No

Releases Release

Below

Acute

Threshold 5 Releas e

Below

Chronic

Threshold 5 Other

Ingestion

Surface water No NA X X NA NA

Ground water (landfill) No NA X X NA

Consumer Use: DtD 2 No NA X NA NA NA No consumer use

Inhalation

Air: incineration (stack) No NA X X

Air: fugitive No NA X

Consumer Use: CEM 3 No NA NA NA NA No consumer use

Dermal

Consumer Use: CEM No NA NA NA NA No consumer use

Eco

Surface water: ADR

conc and/or PDM 4 No NA X NA NA

Consumer Use: DtD No NA NA NA NA No consumer use

1 Assessment cycles are end point concentrations and dose calculations within the NCEM2 model.

2 Down

- the

- Drain

3 Consumer Exposure Model

4 Probabilistic Dilution Model

5 The threshold values for assessing endpoints are 1 mg/day for acute doses and 1 mg/year for chronic doses.

EAB DROP : Release information for this compound does not meet criteria for preparation of an exposure

assessment in the Exposure Assessment Branch

= s (EAB) Initial Review Exposure Report (this report).
Exhibit 99.10

CONSENT OF ENGINEER

Ladies and
Gentlemen:

The undersigned hereby consents to (1) the references to the undersigneds name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual
Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with the report entitled Technical Report on the Uranium Exploration Properties in Mongolia dated February 27, 2007 and (2) all other references to the undersigned
included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp.

Dated: March 19, 2014



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Thomas C Pool                                 
|Thomas C. Pool, P.E. Roscoe Postle Associates
Inc.
CLSALVADOR UhtOO:> cnECE~O$ T()OOS 

-====:::--.;:::o:::-----; ::: AUTORIDAD DE AVIAeiON CIVIL 

REPUBLICA DE EL SALVADOR) EL SALVADOR C.A. 

I - - -+- - --- --···-- - 1 

llopango, May 27th, 2015. 

Mr. Paul Gretch. 

Director 

Office of International Aviation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

40007th Street, S.W. Room 6402 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Mr. Gretch: 

AAC-GL-018-2015-DE 

' The El Salvador Civil Aviation Authority hereby confirms, that it will grant, on the basis of 

reciprocity, to any air carrier designated by the United ,States of America, the right to conduct fifth and 

seventh freedom traffic rights on schedules or non-sc7edules basis, which are in conformity to the Air 

Transport Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government I 

of El Salvador, signed on May 8th 1997. ' 

Sincerely yours.
Exhibit 10.2







AMENDMENT TO THE


DISCOVERY LABORATORIES, INC.


2011 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN







The Discovery Laboratories, Inc. 2011 Long-Term Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as set forth below, effective June 10, 2014:







I.







Section 4(a)(i) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:







“(i)  Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4(b) and to the terms of this Section 4, the total number of Shares reserved and available for delivery pursuant to Awards granted under the Plan shall be (A) twelve million, seven hundred-thousand (12,700,000), plus (B) the number of shares that, immediately prior to the Effective Date, remain available for issuance or delivery under the 2007 Plan; plus (C) the number of shares subject to awards under the 2007 Plan which become available for grant under the Plan in accordance with Section 4(c) after the Effective Date.”







II.







Except as set forth herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
exh_101.htm


Exhibit 10.1



 


Confidential treatment has been requested for portions of this exhibit. The copy filed herewith omits the information subject to the confidentiality request. Omissions are designated as [***].  A complete version of this exhibit has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 



AMENDMENT NO. 1 to PROTIVA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INC. OPTION AGREEMENT






 


THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to PROTIVA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT


 


COMPANY INC. OPTION AGREEMENT ("Amendment No. l") effective as of the last date of signature hereto ("Effective Date"), is by and among Monsanto Canada, Inc., a Canadian corporation ("Monsanto Canada"), Tekmira Pharmaceuticals Corporation, a British Columbia corporation ("Tekmira"), Protiva Biotherapeutics Inc., a British Columbia corporation ("Protiva"), and Protiva Agricultural Development Company Inc., a British Columbia corporation (the "Company").


 


WHEREAS, Monsanto Canada, Tekmira, Protiva, and Company (collectively the "Parties") are parties to an option agreement effective January 12, 2014 (the "Agreement"); and


 


WHEREAS, Parties desire to amend Exhibit B-5(i), OPTION SET-UP COMPLETION CRITERIA;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above, the Parties hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:


 



	
1.

	
Exhibit B-5(i), OPTION SET-UP COMPLETION CRITERIA in the Agreement shall be replaced in its entirety by the amended and restated OPTION SET-UP COMPLETION CRITERIA attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.







 


Upon execution, this Amendment No. 1 shall be made a part of the Agreement. Except as provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 




  





1











  






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed or caused this Amendment No. 1to be executed by their respective officers or other representatives duly authorized.







 



	
PROTIVA BIOTHERAPEUTICS INC.

	 	
PROTIVA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	
/s/ Bruce Cousins

	 	By:	
/s/ Bruce Cousins


	Name:	
Bruce Cousins

	 	Name:	
Bruce Cousins


	Title:	
Executive Vice President & CFO

	 	Title: 	
Executive


	Address:	June 26, 2014	 	Address:	
June 26, 2014


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
TEKMIRA PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION

	 	
MONSANTO CANADA, INC.


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	
/s/ Bruce Cousins

	 	By:	
/s/ Robert M. McCarroll


	Name:	
Bruce Cousins

	 	Name:	
Robert M.McCarroll, Ph. D.


	Title:	
Executive Vice President & CFO

	 	Title:	
Authorized Signatory


	Address:	
June 26, 2014

	 	Address:	
June 26, 2014


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 





 









  





2











  






EXHIBIT B-5(i)


 


OPTION SET-UP COMPLETION CRITERIA







[***]


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

  3
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): November 5, 2007
 Legacy Reserves LP
  Delaware
    
    1-33249
    
    16-1751069(State or other jurisdiction of
    
    (Commission
    
    (IRS Employerincorporation)
    
    File Number)
    
    Identification No.)303 W. Wall Street, Suite 1400Midland, Texas
    
    79701(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 (432) 689-5200
 NOT APPLICABLE
  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17
CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17
CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 7.01 Regulation FD DisclosureItem 9.01 Financial Statements and ExhibitsSIGNATURESEXHIBIT INDEXSlide Presentation    Table of Contents  
 Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure.
  
 Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
 Exhibits.
 Exhibit Number
    
    DescriptionExhibit 99.1
    
    Slide Presentation by Legacy Reserves LP.




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURES
  LEGACY RESERVES LPBy:
    Legacy Reserves GP, LLC,its general partnerDate: November 5, 2007
    /s/ Steven H. PruettSteven H. PruettPresident, Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary




---



##### Table of Contents



EXHIBIT INDEX
 Exhibit Number
    
    DescriptionExhibit 99.1
    
    Slide Presentation by Legacy Reserves LP.
-   

# Nuclear Data, Criticality Safety, and Radiation Transport Section

The Nuclear Data, Criticality Safety, and Radiation Transport Section provides integrated nuclear data, modeling and simulation, nuclear criticality safety, and radiation transport analysis capabilities to enable innovative technical solutions for nuclear technology applications.

**OUR VISION**

To provide world-class criticality safety, nuclear data, and radiation transport analysis and computational tools to allow for ground-breaking technical solutions across a wide range of nuclear applications.

**OUR MISSION**

Provide integrated nuclear data, modeling and simulation, nuclear criticality safety, and radiation transport analysis capabilities to enable innovative technical solutions for nuclear technology applications.

### Contact

DouglasG Bowen

bowendg@ornl.gov

## Current Research

## News

Teletrix licenses methods for ionizing radiation training using augmented reality

## News

Expanding fission software to tackle ITER's fusion challenges

## News

The first spark: the inspiration behind our S&T
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the report of Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period
ended September 30, 2009 (the "Report"), I, Mike Heather, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



December 18, 2009

/s/ MIKE HEATHER Mike Heather Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT HENRY T. SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 97-1996 STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-97-1654-PJM) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: July 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Henry T. Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Witherup Tindall,OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lackof jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). A defendant in a criminal action has ten days within which to file in the district court a notice of appeal from a judgment or final order. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). The only exception to the appeal period is when the district court extends the time to appeal upon showing of excusable neglect. Id. The district court entered its order on June 13, 1997, and denied Appellant's motion for reconsideration on July 2, 1997; Appellant'snotice of appeal was filed on July 16, 1997, which is beyond the tenday appeal period. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We also deny all of Appellant's outstanding motions including hismotions for a stay, a preliminary injunction, an interim stay, a vacation, expedited treatment, a conference, summary reversal, sanctions, attorney's fees, remand, "alternatives," "modifications," default, and an evidentiary hearing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2