alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN EQUITY.

#### Haslen *v.*Kean.

From Craven.

The only inodes pointed out by law, for transmitting; cases to this Court, are by appeal, or by order of the presiding1 Judge, because he doubts on certain points ; when therefore, the parties *by consent*make points in a case, without the authority of the Court, and transmit them for decision, the case comes through no legitimate channel, and the Court will send it back.

This case coming before the Court again,* it appeared from the statement sent up, that on motion below, that a decree be pronounced, pursuant to the certificate sent down before, in this cause, Defendant prayed that the cause should be remanded to the Supreme Court, for their opinion on the following points :

1. Whether the trust expressed in the deed of Wilson Blount, be not void in its creation ?

2. Whether the heirs of Edward Kean, can be required to make the conveyance demanded by Complainant, inasmuch as the said deed, in terms, binds only the said Kean, his executors, administrators and assigns to make the conveyance ?

The presiding Judge, having declined giving any opinion in the case, when in the Supreme Court before, from reasons founded on his peculiar situation, and yet retaining all their force, directed a decree to be entered pursuant to the certificate sent from this Court, subject to the opinion of the Supreme Court, whether the foregoing points shall be made for their consideration.

*

 Torn Reports 2/9,

Ham, Judge.

This case, some time ago, was sent to this Court, for its opinion on certain questions therein made, by the Judge who then presided in the Court below. The questions have been decided by this Court, and sent back, in order that that Court should make a decree in the case. At the ensuing term, the presiding *383Judge was so situated, that he could give no opinion the case. The parties, by their own consent, rather than by any authority from him, have made other points in the case, and transmitted them here, for our opinion. It results, that the case has now come here, through no legitimate *channel;*not by way of appeal, nor by order of the presiding Judge, because he doubts upon those points, which are the only ways pointed out by law, in which cases can be transferred to the Supreme Court, from the Superior Courts. I am, therefore, of opinion, that the case must be sent back to await such order or decree, as the next presiding Judge, shall think proper *to*make therein.

SjbaweIiIi, Judge

I am of opinion, that the Defendant is not precluded from insisting on any tiling, which he has a right to do, according to the rules of a Court of Equity, except such as have been decided by this Court. And as this Court can take no jurisdiction, but on the points submitted to it; it follows, that none others can be judicially decided. It is impossible to give a direct answer to the questions now submitted, as it does not appear by the case, what was submitted in in the former case.

Daniel, and Ruffin, Judges, concurred.
PPO Registrant Focus Meeting Notes

- Docket May 2, 2013 2:00

- 3:3 0 pm Non

- EPA attendees Dave Ludwig (ABERCO/Balchem) Chris Klosen (ABERCO/Balchem) Joanne Cashin (ABERCO/Balchem) Gabrielle Ludwig (California Almond Board) Sheryl Dolan (ACTA Group) Susan Hunter

- Youngren (ACTA Group)

– calling in Ed Hosoda (Cardinal Professional Products)

– calling in

EPA Team

– see attached list for meeting attendees RD: Heather Garvie, Cynthia Giles

- Parker (BC), Driss Benmhend (Acting PM) PRD: Garland Waleko /Andrea Moji ca , Cathryn Britton, Kevin Costello (BC) HED: Angela Howard, Ivan Nieves, Susan Hummel, Thurston Morton, Charles Smith, Jeff Dawson, Elissa Reaves (BC) EFED: Sajutha Sankula, Ed Odenkirchen (Acting BC), Stephen Carey, He Zhong, Gabe Rothman BEAD: Len Your man, Sepehr Haddad, Monisha Kaul, Michelle Ranville

1. PPO Amendment Action Meeting 2:00

- 2:45 The registrants had several questions regarding the technical screen for EPA reg #47870

- 3 , Amendment Action to Revise Buffer Zones. EPA and the registrants discusse d h ow to address the deficiencies identified in the screen.

2. Focus Meeting 2:45

- 3:30 The purposed of a focus meeting is to clarify use and label uncertainties early in the registration review process. Several commodity/space fumigant questions were provided to the registrant ahead of the meeting (attached to these notes) regarding PPO use, application, emissions, monitoring, and exposure , and these were discussed primaril y in the context of the nut uses

. The registrants will also provide written a nsw ers to the questions to assist EPA.

3. Wrap up and Next Steps

- Preliminary Work Plan (PWP) will be posted when docket opens in December 201 3

- Registrant should submit all use information that will assist EPA in completing the PWP to Garland Waleko in PRD, waleko.garland@epa.gov

.

- All info rmation related to the current amendment action should be submitted to the RD Project Manager, Heather Garvie garvie.heather@epa.gov

.
### Docket No. FAA - 2011 - 1318

**Contacts.** With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted **Date** Response **National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti**  **Regional Airline Association Dave Lotterer**  **Con nie**  **Arnold Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association**  **Robert Hackman ATA**  **Joe White**
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM July 2021

I.2 (+) Nutrientladen liquids 

available for 

irrigation 

I.3 (-) Wear 

and tear on 

irrigation 

equipment

I.4 (-) 

Maintenance 

costs

I.8 (-) Nutrient 

and BOD 

transport to 

receiving waters

Waste Treatment, Milk House (627) Initial setting: Established operation 

producing manure or agricultural 

processing wastes 

D.2 Biological treatment of 

waste to break down organic 

material 

D.3 Physical treatment of 

waste 

I.1 (+) Ability to 

manipulate waste 

stream and handle 

wastes as separate 

solid and liquid 

components I.6 (-) 

Nutrients

I.9 (-) 

Odors 

I.5 (+) Alternatives 

for solid waste 

utilization

I.7 (-) 

Pathogens 

C.4 (+) Income and income 

stability (individuals and 

community)

I.12 (+) 

Agribusiness

C.1 (+) Water quality 

and compliance with 

water quality standards

1. Installation of system for physical, 

mechanical, or biological treatment of dairy 

milk house wastewater

D.1 Mechanical 

treatment of waste

I.14 (-) Cost of 

future regulatory 

compliance

C.2 (+) 

Air 

quality 

I.13 (+/-) Net 

return to 

producer

D.4 (+) Cost of 

infrastructure, operation, 

and maintenance

I.10 (-) 

Greenhouse 

gas emissions

C.3 (+) Public/private 

health and safety, 

community relations

I.11 (+) 

Marketable 

byproducts 

Pathway

Pathway

Start

Notes: 

Effects are qualified with a 

plus (+) or minus (-). These 

symbols indicate only an 

increase (+) or a decrease (-) 

in the effect upon the 

resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

LEGEND

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Associated practice

Mitigating practice

Nutrient Management (590)

Waste Recycling (633)
#### Estate of Weihler: Guenther, Town Treasurer, Respondent, vs. Rupp, Administrator, etc., Appellant.

For the appellant: *L. P. Fox*of Chilton.

For the respondent: *George M. Goggins*of Chilton, attorney, and *T. L. Doyle*of Fond du Lac of counsel.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

COMMUNITY CENTRAL BANK CORPORATION
FORM 10-KSB (continued)



                                   EXHIBIT 21


           List of Subsidiaries of Community Central Bank Corporation

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

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

Name of Subsidiary                                      Jurisdiction of             Names under which
(and ownership)                                         Organization                 it does business

------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------------
<S>                                                     <C>                         <C>
Community Central Bank                                  Michigan                    Community Central Bank
(wholly-owned subsidiary of Community Central Bank
Corporation)

------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------------
Community Central Mortgage Company, L.L.C.              Michigan                    Community Central Mortgage
(99% owned by Community Central Bank and 1% owned by                                Company, L.L.C.
Community Central Bank Corporation)                                                 Mortgage Banking Solutions

------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------------
Community Central Capital Trust I                       Delaware                    Community Central Capital
(Business Trust, wholly owned subsidiary of Community                               Trust I
Central Bank Corporation)
------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------------
Community Central Development Enterprise, LLC *         Michigan                    Community Central Development
(wholly owned subsidiary of Community Central Bank)                                 Enterprise, LLC
* Inactive
------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------------
</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register: April 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 76)]
[Notices]               
[Page 20832]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21ap10-49]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 
Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada 
Test Site

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada Test Site. 
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) 
requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal 
Register.

DATES: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Atomic Testing Museum, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, 
Nevada 89119.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Rupp, Board Administrator, 232 
Energy Way, M/S 505, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89030. Phone: (702) 657-
9088; Fax (702) 295-5300 or E-mail: ntscab@nv.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Tentative Agenda

1. Presentation--Current Non-EM Activities at the Nevada Test Site
2. Presentation--Mixed Waste Storage Unit
3. Sub-Committee Updates
     Industrial Sites Committee
     Membership Committee
     Outreach Committee
     Soils Committee
     Transportation/Waste Committee
     Underground Test Area Committee

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Nevada Test Site, welcomes the 
attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will 
make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or 
special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a 
disability, please contact Denise Rupp at least seven days in advance 
of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may 
be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals 
who wish to make oral presentations pertaining to agenda items should 
contact Denise Rupp at the telephone number listed above. The request 
must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable 
provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The 
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting 
in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. 
Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum 
of five minutes to present their comments.
    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing to Denise Rupp at the 
address listed above or at the following Web site: http://www.nv.doe.gov/ntscab/MeetingMinutes.aspx.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on April 16, 2010.
Rachel Samuel,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-9153 Filed 4-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Composting Facility, Dam, Dam, Diversion, Dike, Diversion, Dry Hydrant, Grade Stabilization Structure, Grassed Waterway, Irrigation Field Ditch, Land Reclamation, Abandoned Mined Land, Land Reclamation, Currently Mined Land, Land Reclamation, Landslide Treatment, Lined Waterway or Outlet, Open Channel, Pond, Pumping Plant, Stream Crossing, Streambank and Shoreline Protection, Structure for Water Control, Terrace, Trails and Walkways, Waste Storage Facility, Water and Sediment Control Basin.****

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
#### Steven and another, Trustees, Respondents, vs. Cousins, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Frawley & Stolts,*attorneys, and *W. H. Frawley, Jr.,*of counsel, all of Eau Claire.

For the respondents: *Bundy, Beach & Holland,*of Eau Claire.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.4.9

                              TERMINATION AGREEMENT


         This Termination Agreement is entered into on this 30th day of
April, 2001, by and between Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, with its principal place of business located at 4350 McKinley
Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68112 (hereinafter "Company") and Ray F. Boegner,
1144 South 185th Circle, Omaha, Nebraska 68130 (hereinafter "Executive").
         WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into an Employment Security
Agreement dated the 26th day of October, 1999, and
         WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to terminate and cancel said
Agreement.
         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
of the parties hereto, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows:
                  1. That certain Employment Security Agreement entered into
                  between the parties on the 26th day of October, 1999, is
                  hereby terminated and cancelled effective immediately, and
                  each party is released from any and all further obligations
                  thereunder.
                  2. Nothing herein contained shall in any way affect the rights
                  of each of the parties under the Employment Agreement entered
                  into on November 20, 1996, as amended on October 25, 1999,
                  which shall remain in full force and effect.
         DATED at Omaha, Nebraska, this 30th day of April, 2001.

                                            BALLANTYNE OF OMAHA, INC.


                                       By:  /s/  John Wilmers
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          President

                                            /s/  Ray F. Boegner
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Executive
# C_2005006EN.01002201.xml

| 8.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/22

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 12 October 2004

in Case C-352/03 P: Pietro Del Vaglio against the Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Appeal - Community officials - Pensions - Change of country of residence - Applicable corrective coefficient - Appeal partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded)

(2005/C 6/42)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-352/03P: Pietro Del Vaglio, former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in London (United Kingdom) (lawyers: M. Famchon and B. Desrez), the other party to the proceedings being the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck) – appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 11 August 2003 – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; Advocate General: J. Kokott, Registrar: R. Grass, has given an order on 12 October 2004, in which it:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Mr Del Vaglio to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Mr Del Vaglio to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251 of 18.10.2003.

1

---
#### McEldowney, Appellant, vs. West Salem Canning Company and others, Defendants: Selden and another, Garnishee defendants and Respondents.

For the appellant: *Arthur T. Holmes*and *Frank Winter,*both of La Crosse.

For the respondent Katherine Selden: /. /. *Cunningham*and *Lees & Bunge,*all of La Crosse.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
July 2022

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Tree-Shrub Pruning (Code 660) 

Tree-shrub pruning is a treatment applied to trees and

shrubs that involves the removal of selected branches,

shoots, or roots. It may also be applied to the removal of all

above-ground material where a coppicing technique is

being used to renew the growth of trees or shrubs. 

Practice Information 

Pruning is used to improve the health, appearance, and

value of trees or shrubs by removing damaged, unhealthy,

or unsightly portions of the plants. It can also be used to address safety concerns by cutting

hazardous branches, or removing fuels that contribute to wildfire risk. Pruning can encourage growth

of understory plants by getting sunlight to the forest floor. It may also be used to provide access to a

forested stand for other management activities. Pruning is used on field windbreaks to manage drifting

snow, spreading it more evenly over the adjacent fields to allow earlier cropping and improved

moisture conditions. Windbreaks may also be pruned to manage odors or to provide air flow that

reduces the likelihood of tree diseases. 

Timing of pruning is a critical consideration. Many trees and shrubs are best pruned during the

dormant season to avoid shock to the plant, and to reduce the likelihood of insect or disease attacks.

However, pruning may be necessary following storms to remove damaged and hazardous branches.

The woody material left after pruning trees or shrubs can remain on site and contribute to soil organic

matter and plant nutrient supplies. Alternately, it can be removed from the site if it presents a hazard

for wildfires, or if it will contribute to outbreaks of harmful insects or plant diseases. 

A variety of tree and shrub species may be pruned, but the practice is labor-intensive and can be

expensive. Costs and benefits should be evaluated before deciding to prune. Impacts to wildlife

habitat are variable, depending on site conditions, tree or shrub characteristics, and the wildlife

species present. Adjust the timing of pruning operations so they do not impact nesting birds or the

rearing of young animals. 

Common Associated Practices 

Tree-Shrub Pruning (660) is applied as a facilitating practice to Alley Cropping (311), Forest Farming

(379), Silvopasture (381), Tree-Shrub Establishment (612), and Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment

and Renovation (650). Woody Residue Treatment (384) is a supporting practice used for removing

woody material. Forest Stand Improvement (666) is a supporting practice used when entire trees must

be cut or killed to control disease or insect pests. 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
# C_2004262EN.01000901.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/9

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 9 September 2004

in Case C-70/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Rules of interpretation - Rules concerning conflict of laws)

(2004/C 262/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-70/03: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations brought on 17 February 2003, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: I. Martínez del Peral and M. França) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Rosas and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing correctly to transpose into national law Articles 5 and 6(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing correctly to transpose into national law Articles 5 and 6(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.

1

---
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 13 January 2005

in Case C-32/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/58/EC - Non-transposition within the period prescribed)

(2005/C 57/22)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-32/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U.Wölker and F. Simonetti) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Mercier) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 29 January 2004 – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 January 2005, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 71 of 20.03.2004.

----