alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Page *v.*Farmer.

In. an action of debt on a penal statute, thp writ called upon tile Defendant “ to render to the Plaintiff the sum of fifty pounds, “ due under an act of the General Assembly to him, and which from liim he unjustly detains, to his damage, &c.” Held that this writ is substantially in the *debet and detinet.*

This was an action of debt on a penal statute, and after verdict, it was, moved in arrest of judgment, that the writ ivas not in the *debet*and *detinet,*but in the *detinet*only. The writ called upon Farmer to answer Page of a plea “ that he render to him the, sum of fifty pounds, due, under an act of the General Assembly to him, and which, from him he unjustly detains to his damage, &c.” The Plaintiff contended that the Court must necessarily adjudge from the phraseology of the writ, that the action was in the *debet*and *detinet,*and was therefore such an action as the defendant contended should be brought; and it was submitted to this Court, whether this writ was in the *debet*and *detinet,*or *detinet*only.

Tayuoii, Chief Justice,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

it is not deemed necessary to decide the question, whether a vicious writ can betaken advantage of after verdict: or whether the statutes of *jeofails*extend to actions upon penal statutes. The construction of this writ, which presents itself to the Court as the just, and^noces-sary one, and derived from the unavoidable import of *289tlie words, renders it a writ in the *debet*and *detivet.*Though not precisely in the form that the usage of the law has annexed to such process, yet the words m winch it is expressed will not, without a strained interpretation, convey a meaning substantially different. The Defendant is called upon to answer to the Plaintiff, “ that lie render to him £50, due under an act of Assembly to him, and which the Defendant detains from him.” It is due to the Plaintiff, under or by virtue of the act of Assembly, and the Defendant cannot detain it unjustly, unless it is due from him. If A call on B to demand payment of a sum of money, which the former states to be due to him by bond, the amount of which lie charges the latter with detaining from him', B cannot doubt that the meaning of A is, to charge him with owing as well as detaining the money. Whether the writ uses the verb in the present tense, or substitutes for it the past participle, the charge of owing and detaining is in substance equally made out. The general issue then is, *nil*debet, to which the verdict of the jury is responsive, by its finding that the Defendant does owe. Let the reasons in arrest be overruled.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases

# NRC Approves Power Uprate for San Onofre Nuclear Facility in California

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, February 04, 2021
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Herman Parker, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 1023]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

**Certification by the Chief Executive Officer**

 

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Chunghwa Telecom Co., Ltd. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Shyue-Ching Lu, Chairman and 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 to my knowledge:

 

(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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: April 20, 2012

 
|   | By:        | /S/ SHYUE-CHING LU                    |
|--------|------------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | **Name:**  | **Shyue-Ching Lu**                         |
|   | **Title:** | **Chairman and Chief   Executive Officer** |

 

----
No. 86-910.

#### Exportadora Colombiana de Emeraldas Co., Ltd., et al. *v.*$630,000 in United States Currency et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
AMPER, POLITZINER & MATTIA,LLP


CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


and CONSULTANTS








6 EAST 43RD STREET


NEW YORK, NY 10017-4650





PHONE:212.682.1600


FAX:212.682.1661

















August 31, 2010





Securities and Exchange Commission


100 F Street, N.E.


Washington, D.C. 20549-7561





Dear Sirs/Madams:





We have read Zanett, Inc.'s statements included under Item 4.01 on its Form 8-K/A filed on August 31, 2010, and agree with such statements concerning our firm.











/s/ Amper, Politziner & Mattia, LLP














NEW JERSEY: BRIDGEWATER | EDISON | HACKENSACK | PRINCETON | WALL


NEW YORK: NEW YORK | WESTCHESTER


PENNSYLVANIA: PHILADELPHIA
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsInterim Staff Guidance

# Interim Staff Guidance for High-Level Waste Repository Safety

 

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

 

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, September 21, 2020
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway, Just i ces

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 2, 2010

0330 

# Order

April 2, 2010

139310

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139310 COA: 290746 Wayne CC: 92-004271; WILMOT MOORE, 92-004272; 92-004273 Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 25, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

H ATHAWAY
, J. ( not participating ). In his applicati on, defendant alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel. I will not be participating in this case because I have a close personal relati onship with defendant’s tria l counsel and his family.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

I, Timothy A. Harkness, certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Molecular
Devices Corporation;

      2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

      4.    The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

            a)    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; and

            b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

            c)    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

      5.    The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

            a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

            b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: May 10, 2004

/s/ Timothy A. Harkness
--------------------------

Timothy A. Harkness
Chief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued March 27, 2007

Decided April 20, 2007

Before

Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 06-3135

JOSEPH JOHN RYAN,

Petitioner,

v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, 

Attorney General of the United States,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals.

No. A35-042-827

O R D E R

Joseph John Ryan is a citizen of Ireland who entered into the United States in

1975 as an immigrant. He made a life for himself in the Chicagoland area where he

is married and has four children. He has been employed as a dock worker since 1984

and is active in his union and community. However, Ryan was also convicted in 1995

of criminal sexual assault of a family member under the age of 18 in violation of 720

ILCS 5/12-13-A-3 and was sentenced to four years probation. In 2004, a Notice to

Appear was issued charging him with removability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because the sexual assault conviction qualified as an aggravated

felony as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 06-3135 Page 2

In the proceeding before the IJ, Ryan “submit[ted] and concede[d] removability,”

R. 60 at ln. 4-5, but he submitted an application for a § 212(c) waiver. The IJ held that

a § 212(c) waiver was not available because of the BIA’s decision in In re Blake. 23 I.

& N. Dec. 722 (B.I.A. 2005). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision.

Ryan argues that In re Blake conflicts with the Supreme Court’s decision in I.N.S.

v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001). However, we previously rejected this argument in

Valere v. Gonzales. 473 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Dalombo Fontes v. Gonzales,

– F.3d –, No. 05-1755, 2007 WL 949590, at *7 n.4 (1st Cir. Mar. 30, 2007); Vo v.

Gonzales, – F.3d –, No. 05-60518, 2007 WL 816522 (5th Cir. Mar. 19, 2007). Valere

controls our consideration of this issue. We find no reason to contrast Valere or

otherwise reject its application in the present case. Therefore, we faithfully apply

Valere and reject Ryan’s argument as to § 212(c) relief. 

Ryan also raises secondary arguments in his brief as to the type of removal charges

levied against him and whether he is actually removable. Unfortunately for Ryan, he

did not bring these arguments before the IJ and BIA and therefore we cannot review

them. See Capric v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1075, 1087 (7th Cir. 2004) (“An alien is required

to raise and exhaust his remedies as to each claim or ground for relief if he is to

preserve the right to judicial review of that claim.”) (citing Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft,

330 F.3d 587, 594-95 (3d Cir. 2003); Mojsilovic v. I.N.S., 156 F.3d 743, 748 (7th Cir.

1998)). 

The petition for review is DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7776

PAUL THOMASON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-21843) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 7, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Thomason, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Paul Thomason, Jr., seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his or her constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomason has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Potentially Damaging Failure Modes of High- and Medium-Voltage Electrical Equipment (NUREG/CR-3122, ORNL/NSIC-213)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-3122 (PDF - 2.18 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**July 1983

**Prepared by:**Harry C. HoyNuclear Operations Analysis CenterOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak Ridge, Tennessee 37830

**Prepared for:**Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational DataU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

NRC FIN B-1672

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The electrical equipment failures of both nuclear and nonnuclear public utilities were reviewed. Those failures that could pose an additional problem to surrounding and connected equipment were defined. The literature was searched; utilities, repair shops, and large electrical equipment users were contacted or failure information. The data were reviewed in detail, and failure modes were determined. Sample cascade failures are discussed. The failure rate of electrical equipment in utilities is historically quite low. Nuclear plants record too few failures to be statistically valid, but failures that have been recorded show that good design usually restricts the failure to a single piece of equipment. An exception to this, ofcourse, was the December *5,*1981, North Anna Unit 1 failure, where theinitial fault in one of the main transformers resulted in damage to the generator, the generator bus, and associated equipment.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.6


                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                           TRADEMARK LICENSE AGREEMENT


      Reference is made to the Trademark License Agreement dated as of September
4, 2003, by and among Atari Interactive, Inc. ("Atari Interactive"), with a
principal place of business at 417 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Infogrames
Entertainment, S.A. ("Parent"), with a principal place of business at 1 Place
Verrazzano, 69252 Cedex 09, France, and Atari, Inc. (Licensee), with a principal
place of business at 417 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016, in full force as of
the date hereof (the "Agreement"). This Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement
("Amendment"), effective as of August 22nd, 2005, when fully executed, shall
constitute the further understanding between the parties with regard to the
Agreement.

      1. Paragraph 4.2 shall be modified such that the following sentence shall
be added as the last sentence of the paragraph:

      "In addition, Licensee's distribution and/or sale, pursuant to the
      distribution agreement ("Distribution Agreement") entered into by Licensee
      and Humongous, Inc. (see Distribution Agreement, attached as Exhibit A),
      of Software Packages (as defined in the Distribution Agreement) shall not
      be subject to the payment of any royalties or other consideration
      hereunder. For the avoidance of doubt, amounts received by Licensee in
      connection with such distribution and/or sales shall not be deemed net
      revenues."

      2. Except as expressly or by necessary implication modified or amended by
this Amendment, the terms of the Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed
without limitation or exception.

      3. Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined
shall have the same meaning ascribed to them as set forth in the Agreement.

                                       1
<PAGE>

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set forth their hands and
seals as of the date first written above.

ATARI INTERACTIVE, INC.

By: /s/ Frederic Chesnais
    ------------------------
    Frederic Chesnais
    CEO

    August 22, 2005
    ---------------
    (date signed)

ATARI, INC.

By: /s/ Jeffrey B. Kempler
    --------------------------
    Jeffrey B. Kempler
    Senior Vice President,
    Business & Legal Affairs

    22 Aug 2005
    -------------
    (date signed)

INFOGRAMES ENTERTAINMENT S.A.

By: /s/ Bruno Bonnell
    --------------------------

    Bruno Bonnell
    ------------------
    (Name)

    PDG
    -------
    (Title)

    August 22, 2005
    ---------------
    (date signed)

                                       2
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1733 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1733

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                                 An Act

 
 To direct the Secretary of Energy to review and update a report on the 
energy and environmental benefits of the re-refining of used lubricating 
                                  oil.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ENERGY SAVINGS FROM LUBRICATING OIL.
    Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of Energy, in cooperation with the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency and the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget, shall--
        (1) review and update the report prepared pursuant to section 
    1838 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005;
        (2) after consultation with relevant Federal, State, and local 
    agencies and affected industry and stakeholder groups, update data 
    that was used in preparing that report; and
        (3) prepare and submit to Congress a coordinated Federal 
    strategy to increase the beneficial reuse of used lubricating oil, 
    that--
            (A) is consistent with national policy as established 
        pursuant to section 2 of the Used Oil Recycling Act of 1980 
        (Public Law 96-463); and
            (B) addresses measures needed to--
                (i) increase the responsible collection of used oil;
                (ii) disseminate public information concerning 
            sustainable reuse options for used oil; and
                (iii) promote sustainable reuse of used oil by Federal 
            agencies, recipients of Federal grant funds, entities 
            contracting with the Federal Government, and the general 
            public.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1737 

To amend the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 with 

respect to the application of the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule to certain farms, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 27, 2017 

Mr. CRAWFORD (for himself, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. JONES, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. 

LONG, Mr. ROUZER, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. 

MITCHELL, Mr. PALAZZO, Mr. LUCAS, Mr. HURD, Mr. WOMACK, Mr. 

STEWART, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. KELLY of Mississippi, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. HARPER, Mr. YOHO, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. HUDSON, Mr. LAMALFA, 

Mr. BYRNE, Mr. BOST, and Ms. JENKINS of Kansas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Water Resources Reform and Development 

Act of 2014 with respect to the application of the Spill 

Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule to certain 

farms, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1737 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Farmers Undertake 

3 Environmental Land Stewardship Act’’ or the ‘‘FUELS 

4 Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, 

6 AND COUNTERMEASURE RULE. 

7 Section 1049 of the Water Resources Reform and De8 velopment Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 1361 note) is amend9 ed— 

10 (1) in subsection (b)— 

11 (A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking 

12 ‘‘20,000’’ and inserting ‘‘42,000’’; 

13 (B) by amending paragraph (2)(A) to read 

14 as follows: 

15 ‘‘(A) an aggregate aboveground storage ca16 pacity greater than 10,000 gallons but less than 

17 42,000 gallons; and’’; 

18 (C) in paragraph (3)— 

19 (i) by amending subparagraph (A) to 

20 read as follows: 

21 ‘‘(A) with an aggregate aboveground stor22 age capacity of less than or equal to 10,000 

23 gallons; and’’; and 

24 (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking 

25 ‘‘; and’’ and inserting a period; and 

26 (D) by striking paragraph (4); 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1737 IH

1 (2) in subsection (c)(2)(A)— 

2 (A) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘1,000’’ and 

3 inserting ‘‘1,320’’; and 

4 (B) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘2,500’’ and 

5 inserting ‘‘3,000’’; and 

6 (3) by striking subsection (d). 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS