alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Will of Hipsch: Hipsch, Appellant, vs. Hipsch, Executor, Respondent.

*December 1*

December *30, 1953.*

*448For the appellant there was a brief by *Howard A. Tilg*and *George W. Koch, Jr.,*both of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Tilg.*

For the respondent there was a brief and oral argument by *Alvin M. Strnad*of Milwaukee.

MaRtin, J.

It is stated in the trial court’s opinion :

“It seems clear that testator intended to devise and bequeath to his wife only a part of his estate and the residue, upon termination of the trust, to go to his brother, two sisters, and his wife. We cannot hold that he intended all of his property to go to his widow which would be the result under the statutes (237.02) (318.01) had he not lawfully devised or bequeathed the same.”

Sec. 237.02, Stats., provides:

> *“Homestead how to descend.*When the owner of any homestead shall die, not having lawfully devised the same, such homestead shall descend in the manner following:

> “(1) If the decedent shall have no lawful issue, to the widow or widower.

> “(2) If the decedent shall leave a widow and issue or a widower and issue, to the widow or widower so long as not remarried, and upon marriage or death to the original decedent’s heirs according to section 237.01, . . .”

It is unnecessary to discuss the cases of *Will of Pfeiffer*(1939), 231 Wis. 117, 285 N. W. 432, and *Will of Bresnehan*(1936), 221 Wis. 51, 265 N. W. 93, referred to in the briefs. The instant case is governed by *Estate of Gray*(1953), ante, pp. 217, 218, 61 N. W. (2d) 467, where the language considered was as follows:

> “I herewith give, devise, and bequeath unto my wife, Mildred Gray, the share of my estate which she would receive under the law if I died intestate.”

*449Here the language in question is “such homestead and dower rights in all of the real estate of which I may die seized as she would have if I had died intestate.”

In the *Gray Case,*as here, the language quoted is followed by a residuary clause. It was there held that such language was not ambiguous, and that it could not be construed as meaning the wife should receive that share of the estate which she would receive under the law if she elected to take under the law instead of under the will, without transgressing the rule that a court cannot reform a will by changing its language but can only construe the language as written. It was also held that even though the residuary clause of the will establishes' that the testator intended there would be a residue, the courts are nevertheless without authority to reform and remake the will and cut down the bequest and devise to the widow so as to leave a residue to pass under the residuary clause.

For a full discussion of all matters involved, see the *Gray Case, supra.*

*By the Court.*— Order reversed and cause remanded with directions to enter an order construing the will so as to bequeath and devise to the widow, Marie Hipsch, in fee, the entire real estate of which the testator died seized.
### United States Department of State

Bureau of Oceans and International

Environmental and Scientific Affairs

Washin gton, D.C. 20520

January 31 , 2012

Mr. Marco Gonzalez

Executive Secretary

Ozone Secretariat

United Nations Environment Programme

United Nations Avenue

P.O. Box 30552

Nairobi, Kenya

Dear Mr. Gonzalez:

Consistent with provisions of the Montreal Protocol and of Decision IX/6 of the Parties, the United States

submits the enclosed nomination for a methyl bromide critical use exemption (CUE) in 2014. This nomination is

intended for consideration by the Parties to the Protocol at their Twenty Fourth meeting in 2012. The enclosed

document includes separate chap ters that describe each of the four sectors for which the United States is making a

nomination: California strawberries, commodities, food processing plants, and dry cured pork products. We hope that

this orga nization provides the information in the most accessible manner to facilitate the efforts of the Methyl Bromide

Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) during their review.

The U.S. Government is continuing to collect additional information on issues relevan t to our CUE nominations,

particularly on the emergence of pests in some areas. We will continue to evaluate our CUE need based on the most

current data we have available. We also wish to ensure MBTOC is aware that tolerances related to sulfuryl fluoride are

under consideration in the United States, and we are keeping that under close review as that process moves forward.

Consistent with past practice, the U.S. critical use nomination is based on available alternatives that are viable at the

time of the nomination.

We appreciate your consideration of this application, and look forward to working with you and others to

answer any questions that may arise during the review process. Best regards.

Sincerely,

John Thompson

Deputy Director

Office of Environmental Policy
August 3 , 2015

Mr. Darian Williams

Southeast Enterprises, LLC

PO Box 227

Hazard, KY 41702

Dear Mr. Williams :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your M ay 5 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 1603 ), but

we are unable to process your r equest any further. The information you sent does no t 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 reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 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 descri bed

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 No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 d ays, 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/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
J

~ i KE9 S7q r u' tIN9TED S"rA°rES EN91ROhIMEN3AL PRO`fEC"FION AGEtdCY

r Q V1tASHINGTQN, D.C. 20460 

# i =

0

~ $Tq t FROZ E4C



### pG; 1 4 K C O 5
oPP CE oP AIR AND RADIATION

Dr. David Moody, Manager Carlsbad Field Office Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221

Dear Dr. Moody:

We received a letter dated December 6, 2006, from the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) requesting the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) concurrence on the draft recertification letter CBFO plans to issue to the Central Characterization Pro_ject (CCP) at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). This request is in aecordance with the CBFO procedures that are intended to ensure that the Department of Energy's (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site certifications correlate appropriately with EPA approvals for waste characterization 

### activities at DOE transuranic (TRU) waste generator sites.

In May 2005, EPA performed a baseline inspection of INL CCP's TRU waste eharacterization program (EPA-INL-CCP-05.05-08) for complianee with EPA regulations as required by the 40 CFR 194.8 (69 FR 42571-42583). On November 1, 2005, EPA issued a final inspection report and a letter approving several aspects of the INL CCP waste characterization program (EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49, Item II-A4-59). On November 16, 2005, BPA approved two changes to the INL CCP waste charaeterization program under the tier system described in EPA's final inspection report.

IJpon review of the draft recertifieation letter for INL CCP, EPA determines that it appropriately authorizes characterization and certification of the TRIJ solids (S3000), soil/gravet (S4000) and debris (S5000) waste at INL CCP. Attachment 3 of the draft recertification letter appropriately identifies the procedures for visual examination (HFEF-0I-6890 and NT-AP-09) and TRU waste characterization data generation-level review (NT-AP-09) that EPA evaluated in May 2005 and approved in November 1, 2005. The EPA limitations concerning the TRU waste 

### characterization program for CH retrievably-stored and newly-generated wastes contained in EPA's November 1, 2005, approval letter remain applicable. We concur that the waste characterization equipment, procedures and waste streams encompassed in your draft recertification letter for INL CCP comport with EPA's existing approvals at the site.

irte[netAdcresQJRL;e httofiwww.epa.gcv fteeyeietllRecyelab€e 9 Printedwttt;'1sge:abie OE! 8as®d i.nks or, :C`J%PCStcocse:ner, Pr>-e2ss CnrorL.e Pree Recyc!ed Pape*I

Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review the draft certification letter for INL CCP. lf you have any questions or concerns, please contact Rajani Joglekar (202-343 -9462) or Ed Feltcorn (202-343-9422).

cc: Lloyd Piper, CBFO Vernon Daub, CBFO Courtland Fesmire- CBFO Ava Holland, CBFO Norma Castaneda- CBFO Martin Navarrete, CBFO Dennis Miehls, CBFO Elizabeth Sellers_ iNL Jerry Wells, INL Allison Pringle, CTAC Wayne Ledford, CTAC
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 29, 2016

NO. 03

- 16

- 00364

- CV

J. E. and D. C. a/k/a D. W., Appellant s

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 428TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAY S COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON, AND FIELD

DISMISSED ON APPELLANTS ’ MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the order of termination signed by the district court on May 12, 2016.

Appellants have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the

Court agrees that the motion should be granted. Therefore , the Court grants the motion and

dismisses the appeal

. Because appellants are indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of

costs is made.
GREGORY BUTLER

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 0704

Opinion filed March 1, 2016.

Amended Petition for Belated Appeal

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Gregory Butler, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition s eeking belated appeal is denied on the merits.

THOMAS, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
SI0-l()()S25-()74 

CAQ '.-fcPARTMENTOF 

'zANSPORTATION 

EVERVIGIIANT- -' ^ OPERATIONS 

i m m 12 A q: 12 

August 13,2010 

Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary of Transportation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE; U.S. DOT Small Community Air Service Development Program 

Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport 

Charlottesville, VA 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

I am pleased to submit this letter of support on behalf of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport 

Authority's (CHO) application to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Small Community Air 

Service Development Program (SCASDP). The Airport's grant application highlights the need 

to improve the quality of service and airfares at CHO and requests iinancial assistance to pursue 

new nonstop service to Chicago-O'Hare International Airport (ORD). The availability of 

quality, commercial air service has a profound impact on the region's economy through 

improved access for visitors but equally important, supports the needs of area businesses, 

organizations and educational institutions. 

I want to assure you that the "public - private" partnership that has been developed between 

CHO and the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce for the purpose of supporting new 

nonstop air service to ORD will have our fiill support. Where small community air service 

initiatives are concerned, it is partnerships like this that can make a difference. We have every 

confidence that the program will have the full support of tihe Greater Charlottesville community. 

Sincerely, 

Jfodss E. Couch 

(CI International Inc. 

''ice President and General Manager 

Analytical & Operational Support Division 

CACI International and Subsidiaiy Companies: 

Worldwide Headquarters + I lOONoitb Glebe Road + Arlington, Virginia 22201 -*- (703) 841-7800 + Fax: (703) 841-7882 

CACI Website-http://www.caci.com 

WASHINGTON D.C. + SAN DIEGO + LONDON
---

Exhibit 99.8

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 Elliot Lake Property, Elliot Lake District, Ontario,
Canada dated June 29, 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 12, 2015



/s/ Leo R. HwozdykLeo R. Hwozdyk, P.Eng.
Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.

---
2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-30-2015

USA v. Mark Lawrence

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This September is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2015 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Mark Lawrence" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 1040.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/1040
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 13-4315

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MARK LAWRENCE,

 Appellant 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(No. 2-06-cr-00083-001)

District Judge: Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 26, 2015

Before: CHAGARES, KRAUSE, and BARRY, Circuit Judges.

__________________

JUDGMENT ORDER

___________________

 This cause came to be considered on the record from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was submitted pursuant to Third 

Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on June 26, 2015. 

 While on appeal, the Government made certain concessions in its briefing for the 

first time. The District Court was, thus, unable to consider these concessions in rendering 

its decision. We hold that the District Court should have the opportunity to consider the 
Government's concessions in the first instance. For that reason, it is now hereby 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this Court that the District Court's order dated 

September 30, 2013 is VACATED and REMANDED. 

BY THE COURT,

s/ Michael A. Chagares

 Circuit Judge

ATTEST: 

s/Marcia M. Waldron 

Clerk 

Dated: September 30, 2015
EXHIBIT 12.2SECTION 302 OFFICER CERTIFICATIONI, Luis Alfonso Maza Urueta, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Satelites Mexicanos, S.A. de C.V.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;  4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the company, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annualreport that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The company’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: July 16, 2007       By: /s/ LUIS ALFONSO MAZA URUETA       Name: Luis Alfonso Maza Urueta  Title: Chief Financial Officer
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

James Harold Moon, Appellant

No. 06

- 18

- 00128

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 336th District Court of Fannin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR

- 17

- 26337 ). Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, James Harold Moon, has adequately indicated his inability to
pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MAY 1 5 , 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 18, 2024,                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 2, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 424 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-8, K2025-8.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-24009 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 203 (Monday, October 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84232-84233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24216]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #20666 and #20667; LOUISIANA Disaster Number LA-
20007]


Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public 
Assistance Only for the State of Louisiana

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

[[Page 84233]]


ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Louisiana 
(FEMA-4817-DR), dated 09/23/2024.
    Incident: Hurricane Francine.
    Incident Period: 09/09/2024 through 09/12/2024.

DATES: Issued on 10/15/2024.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/22/2024.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/23/2025.

ADDRESSES: Visit the MySBA Loan Portal at https://lending.sba.gov to 
apply for a disaster assistance loan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa Morgan, Office of Disaster 
Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd 
Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
Louisiana, dated 09/23/2024, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Parishes: Iberville, Jefferson, St. Bernard, Tangipahoa.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Rafaela Monchek,
Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & 
Resilience.
[FR Doc. 2024-24216 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-09-P