alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bjorkquist, Appellant, vs. Schomberg, imp., Respondent.

*November 28*

December *16, 1902.*

*Appeal and error: Questions reviewed.*

Where the question at issue is solely one of fact, the findings of the trial court thereon -will not he reversed unless clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

*78Appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Milwaukee county: OeeeN T. Williams, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

For the appellant there was a brief by Turner, *Pease & Turner,*and oral argument by *W. J. Turner.*

*J. B. Wildish,*for the respondent.

WiNsnow, J.

This is an action in equity, brought by the plaintiff, a judgment creditor of the Union Land Company, an insolvent corporation, against the respondent *Bchomherg*and a number of other persons, claiming that they were liable upon subscriptions to the capital stock of said corporation, oí-as successors to subscribers of said capital stock. Judgment was obtained against some of the defendants, but as to the respondent *Bchomherg*the complaint was dismissed, and the plaintiff appeals from that part of the judgment. The plaintiff’s claim was that Bchomherg, some time after the organization of the corporation, purchased 270 shares of its stock, having a par value of $10 each, upon which there was due and unpaid at least the sum of $740, which sum has never been paid. On the other hand, the defendant claimed that he at no time purchased or owned more than 122 shares of the stock, which stock was fully paid and nonassessable when he purchased, and that thereafter, and prior to the commence^ ment of this action, he surrendered his stock to the corporation, and also paid $1,000 to the corporation, and received in consideration therefor three building lots owned by the corporation. The question at issue was purely one of fact. There was testimony on both sides of the proposition. It cannot be said that the finding of the trial court was so clearly against the preponderance of the evidence that this court would be justified in reversing it. No useful purpose would be subserved by rehearsing the evidence.

*By the Gouri.*— Judgment affirmed.

RaeueeN, J., took no part.
# CE2004084EN.01067201.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/672 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/672

---

(2004/C 84 E/0758)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0792/04

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Return of property by Turkey

Subject:

Many of the Assyrian-Chaldean-Syriac and Armenian people who were deported in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 were liquidated. The Turkish State later seized their property on the grounds that those who had been liquidated had disappeared and were no longer looking after their property. These seizures took place, ‘inter alia’, between 1951 and 1960. In official documents and decisions, the Turkish State calls this property ‘surrendered Armenian assets’.

Will the Commission consider taking measures to induce Turkey to return this property to the Assyrian-Chaldean-Syriac and Armenian owners?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

(19 April 2004)

The question of the confiscated and seized properties of non Moslem communities in Turkey has been repeatedly mentioned in the Commission's Regular Report in past years.

In particular, in its Regular Report of October 2002, the Commission mentioned ‘in the case of non-Moslem religious communities, only properties declared under Law No 2762 of 1936 are legally recognised, and all properties not listed in 1936 have been taken over by the Turkish State or may be confiscated. Armenian, Greek and Catholic properties have been confiscated, or are at risk’. In its Report of November 2003, the Commission mentioned that ‘the question of confiscated properties, which is a major concern of non-Moslem religious communities, has still not been addressed. Given these communities’ lack of legal status, their properties are permanently at risk of being confiscated and attempts to recover property by judicial means encounter numerous obstacles.'

The Commission has recently been informed that as part of their efforts to address the problems of the non-Moslem communities, the Turkish authorities have recently decided to compile an inventory of the properties confiscated and seized since 1936.

The Commission will continue to follow this matter closely.

---
24 August 2015 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Exemption No. 10375A, As Amended; Docket No. FAA-2011-0819 

Ladies/Gentlemen: 

In accordance with Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR) § 11 .61 , Allegiant Air, 

LLC petitions the Administrator for an extension of Exemption No. 1 0375A (Docket Number: 

FAA-2011-0819). This exemption is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2015. 

This extension will allow Allegiant Air, Inc. continuation of relief from §121.434(c)(1 )(ii). The 

partial exemption, subject to certain conditions and limitations would permit Allegiant, to the 

extent necessary, to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA 

inspector to observe a qualifying pilot-in-command (PIC). This extension would allow Allegiant 

to continue to manage a large volume of regulatory observations in concert with the Principle 

Operations Inspector (POl) to efficiently manage both company and FAA resources through the 

airlines network. 

The renewal of this exemption is not a controversial issue. For this reason, and the reasons 

stated above, Allegiant Air, LLC requests that a finding of good cause be made for waiving 

publication in the Federal Register. Granting the requested relief will set no precedents. The 

existence of the exemption is well known and widely accepted. 

If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at (702) 830-8493. 

<._ <----...... ---------., -=.: - =:-:::::.-_]___ :r --:-----__ 

Captain Steve Ostrander 

Special Projects 

Allegiant Air, LLC 

(702) 830-8493 

steve.ostrander@allegiantair.com 

1201 North Town Center Drive I Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
... ::1:""' _____ .. e . --- ------ • 

Office Memorandum • uN1TBo sTATEs GovERNMENT 

TO .&FS& OOA. DATB. 19 August 19,0e 

Pl.OM 

SUBJBCT: 

. 1 • .AISl 00 baa asked • to tura the attached carreapcmdance on:r to 

1ou to be u.ae8 1D warldng out tbe details ot ...._. U.S • ..Br1tiah Contenmce 

oa the •change of C17Ptograpb1c IT1Do1ples an a Beclpocal Basia. 

4PE.4 t&./ "Wk~.t..t&~ 

tf !~ ~ ""0'-'~~ t'l:"" 

03 .. cit/ 

~ 

J. I. PIARS<B 

eclassified and approved for release by NSA on 

5-13-2014 ursuantto E.O. 13526 

RPIBRET 
' 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~--------~------~--111111111111 f riru._ ~ E;>'-=imfi", ~CJ - ?.,.,;' I , I ~1- .::c' !!CRET 

e j!j-.-. r\°';J i -.:~1\ il If •~ti CG,~f S 

\.:;;;!) Ll ~I ~ii!.. Li \.. :.=a u 

HEADQUARTERS 11.~u::;ls ( ) 

UNITED STATES AIR F'DRCE SECURITY SERVICE ~ a ,,,.. BROCKS AIR FORCE BABE TEXAS '1 ~ ;:II 0 . 

Date. u 

SDS 1._ 4 f.\U G lSS·J 

SUBJECT: U. s. - British Conference on the EJtchange ot 

Cryptographic Principles on a Reciprocal. Basis. 

TO: Director, Armed Forces Security Agenc7 Washington 25, D. C. 

--.. -

1. .AFSAC 63/). dated 19 Jul)" 1950, same subject as above, bas 

been reviewed-as 'to-~its applicability to air operations. It is 

recOJ11Dend.ed th&t. the ;following addib.ons be made. ~ 

a.. Enclosure B, add:-

(1) Under 1.e., 1'?-811 • 

( 2) 11t. Air-ground request weather. 11 

ASAD 1 

(3) ng. Aircraft movements." 

ASAJI 2-1 

AFSAJ[ 7 

(4) 11h. Air-air, air-ground coumunications. n 

AFSAL Sl.04 

Y-8 

b. Appendix to Enclosure B, add:-

Y-8 - Ciph0!>1' equipaent for vHF or UHF range (suitable 

for aircraft installation). ' 

AFSAL 5104 - Code far air-growld, air-au coammm:i cation. 

ASAD 1 - lranual.1y operated. device for meteorological. 

terminal. forecasts. 

2. The above stated additions are considered essential to the 

efficient operatl.OD. of the u.s.A.F. 1n conjunction with British 

services. 

SD-131 

.............................. ______________________________ ~~~~~~~~ Gy· I •r 'I J.. '-

~
IFICATION CI/ntJ 

DISPOSITION FORM 

FILE NO. I SUBJECT 

SCAG Preeentatloa 

FROM 

' lo !ha tollow!ng AISA"'"°' peraonml will ba prepared t.o pre118nt 1tema 

•ntloned at the t'orthcom1ne SCAG oont'erenaat 

a. Rn1ew ot Erdgma aah1ne - Lt. Cmdr. &. Cleuon 

bo Logical dea5«n at certain ar,rptana].ytia maabioeaa 

(1) Boabe - Dr. H. Campa:tgne 

(2) Duenna - Lt. Cmdr. Mo Hall 

(3) Scr1tcbar Cl> Mr. A. n...., 

(4) War look - Dr. J. EaabWI 

(5} lesaage eettlng - Dr. s. luUbaok 

Oo Engineering phases of CMl'tain OJ')'plianaqtio •chin.ea• 

(l) Bonabe QI Xra Lo Bosen 

(llP. J. Ile-) / 

(2) !'uenm OU (llro Jo Bon.rd) 

(3) Scriteher - Mr. R. Bowman 

(4) lfarloak II ... Dr. J. Bachua 

• (5) Jlaohin.e aett1ng - llr. L. Baeea. 

do Electronic rotor111 

(1) Katri:xmhalf Bebern .. Mr. Roger Moulton 

(2) URSA ... Di•. J. Eachua 

(3) Slide tube - Mr. R. Sikee 

(4) Shift reg1stera a Mr. Lo Roeen 

(5) Del.a1' line modit1oat1ona ... Ir. R. Bowman 

eclassified and approved for release by NSA on 

4-02-2014 ursuantto E.O. 13526 
• FICATION (I/Hf) 

DISPOSITION FORM 

FILE NO. SUBJECT 

SCAO Preaontation 

TO FROM DATt.1 ;t•n• 19SJ. COMMENT NO. t 

Dr. s. lullbacfc/f 02Sf> 

2. Thora wll1 be " ch7 iun on the 6th ot Ju.11' 1951. 

3. USl .. •35 dll p1"8pan a 11at ot 1to looa:t pro3oota to 1nalllde loc iti~n 

and pareonnol 1n ohaq;elo 

4. Peraonnel a'btrn "m review their material with Dt•o J.ullbe.ok pr1 lr to 

6 Ju.17 19,lo 

DISTtlIBU'fiO'J: 

1 cow to c•oh person ~ abr;n 

l OOPI to A1'Sl .... OQ! 

l oow to AfSA ... Q2 

2 aop:l.ea tc> lJSA-o'JDl 

SECRET 

2
Exhibit 32.1   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 Quarterly Report of Eaton Vance Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas E. Faust Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  DATE: September 8, 2011/s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.(Signature)Thomas E. Faust Jr.Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYREGIONIXRO75HawthorneStreetSanFrancisco,CA94105-3901AUG102012Ms.KellyJ.BarrSaltRiverProjectP.0.Box52025Phoenix,Arizona85072-2025DearMs.Barr:ThankyouforyourinterestinArizona’splantoaddressregionalhazeinprotectednationalparksandwildernessareasasrequiredundertheCleanAirAct(CAA).WearerespondingtoyourletterdatedJuly20,2012,requestinganextensionofthepubliccommentperiodandadditionalhearings.WeagreetoextendthedeadlineforpubliccommentandconducttwoadditionalpublichearingstoprovidefurtheropportunityforreviewandcommentontheBestAvailableRetrofitTechnology(BART)determinationsforthreepowerplantsinArizona(ApacheGeneratingStation,ChollaPowerPlantandCoronadoGeneratingStation).Wehaveextendedthepubliccommentperiodbytwoweeks,foratotalof60daysendingonSeptember18,2012,butareunabletoprovidethe90daysthatyourequested.WeareonanexpeditedscheduletoreviewandrespondtoallpubliccommentsandtoprepareafmaldeterminationonthesethreeBARTdeterminationsbythedeadlineofNovember15,2012.ThisdeadlineismandatedbyaconsentdecreeenteredbytheFederalDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofColumbia,overArizona’sobjection.Wedidrequestanextensionofthisdeadlinefromtheotherpartiestothatconsentdecree,butwereunsuccessful.OnAugust14,2012,wewillholdanadditionalhearinginHolbrook,ArizonaatHolbrookHighSchool,GeorgeGardnerPerformingArtsCenter,455N.8thAve.)from6-8PM.NotethisisachangefromtheoriginallocationatNorthlandPioneerCollege.OnAugust15,2012,wewillholdahearinginBenson,Arizona,atCochiseCollege(Rooms113and115)from6-8PM.ThesetwohearingsareinadditiontothepublichearingheldinPhoenixonJuly31,2012.Welookforwardtoreceivingyourcommentsontheproposedrulemakingandworkingwithyouandotherinterestedpartiestoaddressregionalhazeaffectingnationalparksandwildernessareas.Ifyouhavefurtherquestions,pleasecontactColleenMcKaughan,at520-498-0118.Sincerely,42JDeboraordanDirector,AirDivisionPrintedonRecycledPaper
1 

Filed 4/3/14 P. v. Jones CA3 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

(San Joaquin) 

---- 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

CHRISTOPHER JONES, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

C074214 

(Super. Ct. No. MF036325B) 

 Defendant Christopher Jones pleaded no contest to attempted second degree 

robbery after he and a confederate tried to take the victim’s wallet. 

 As relevant to this appeal, the court stated at sentencing it was imposing “$108 in 

revenue and security assessments” without stating the statutory basis for the base fine or 

assessments. The sentencing minute order states that the court imposed a $38 “law 

enforcement fine,” while the abstract of judgment refers to a $38 “law enforcement fee”; 

neither refers to the statutory basis for the fee or fine. 

 Defendant contends, and the People concede, the matter must be remanded to the 

trial court to set forth the amounts and statutory authority for all fines, fees, penalties, and 

assessments imposed. 
2 

 We agree. In People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200, this court 

stated: “Although we recognize that a detailed recitation of all the fees, fines and 

penalties on the record may be tedious, California law does not authorize shortcuts. All 

fines and fees must be set forth in the abstract of judgment. [Citations.] The abstract of 

judgment form used here, Judicial Council form CR-290 . . . provides a number of lines 

for ‘other’ financial obligations in addition to those delineated with statutory references 

on the preprinted form. If the abstract does not specify the amount of each fine, the 

Department of Corrections cannot fulfill its statutory duty to collect and forward 

deductions from prisoner wages to the appropriate agency. [Citation.] At a minimum, 

the inclusion of all fines and fees in the abstract may assist state and local agencies in 

their collection efforts. [Citation.] Thus, even where the Department of Corrections has 

no statutory obligation to collect a particular fee, such as the laboratory fee imposed 

under Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, the fee must be included in the abstract of 

judgment. [Citation.]” 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. The matter is remanded to the trial court with 

directions to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect all fines, fees, penalties, and 

assessments. The court is directed to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract of 

judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

 RAYE , P. J. 

We concur: 

 HULL , J. 

 MAURO , J.
# CE2004084EN.01078601.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/786 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/786

---

(2004/C 84 E/0882)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0408/04

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive in the Netherlands

Subject:

Directive 2002/49/EC (1) on the management of environmental noise requires every Member State to make environmental noise maps for all major airports which have more than 50 000 movements per year.

1

Correspondence between the Netherlands Government and the Second Chamber shows that the Netherlands is planning to make an environmental noise map and draw up an accompanying action plan solely in respect of Schiphol Airport.

Movement data provided by the Central Statistical Office in 2001 show a different picture. The airports in Rotterdam (92 874), Groningen (61 324) and Maastricht (58 534) are already above the 50 000 limit, while Lelystad, with 47 135 movements, has almost reached the critical threshold.

Can the European Commission publish a definitive list of all the airports in the Netherlands which have more than 50 000 movements?

What will the Commission do if the Netherlands remains in breach of its obligations?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

(10 March 2004)

The Commission has been interested to note the Written Question from the Honourable Member concerning the implementation of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (2) in the Netherlands.

2

In accordance with 7(1) of the Directive, Member States have until 30 June 2005 to inform the Commission about the airports situated within their territory which are covered by the scope of the Directive. These airports are defined in Article 3 (p) of the Directive as ‘civil airports, designated by the Member State, which have more than 50 000 movements per year (a movement being a take-off or a landing), excluding those purely for training purposes on light aircraft’.

Furthermore, pursuant to Article 14, Member States have until 18 July 2004 to transpose Directive 2002/49/EC into their national legal order. To date, the Commission has not received notification of transposition from the Netherlands.

In view of the above, the Commission does not presently have the list of Dutch airports covered by the scope of Directive 2002/49/EC but considers that it is not appropriate to launch infringement proceedings against the Dutch Government. It wishes to thank the Honourable Member for drawing its attention to this particular point and will see to it that the provisions of the Directive on environmental noise are applied by the Member States to all infrastructures and agglomerations covered by its scope.

---

(1)  OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12.

1

(2)  OJ L 189, 18.7.2002.

2

---
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; AIDS Research Review Committee Independent Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         March 24, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Vasundhara Varthakavi, DVM, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, DEA/NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, 240-669-5020,                         *varthakaviv@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 25, 2015.

David Clary, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-04326 Filed 3-2-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-03224, No. 333-45415, No. 333-06785 and No.
333-42226) and Form S-8 (No. 33-49017, No. 33-98210 and No. 333-49017) of AXA
Financial, Inc. of our reports dated March 12, 2008 relating to the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedules, which appears in this
Form 10-K.





/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers
New York, New York
March 12, 2008
EXHIBIT 32.1





PSI CORPORATION


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, David Foni, the Chief Executive Officer of PSI Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of 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.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








Date: May 10, 2010

/s/ David FoniDavid FoniChief Executive Officer
FRCM: 1IJCIB COO'.RDI?u.TOB 1.4 JAIUARY 1952 Mn: 151732'Z 

EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

DDUBll I IWI!I'B ~ ro ms MEMC> TO cHAiflWi, wcIB cwm/244 /51, 

10 I8C 51) THAT .HATIClfAL SECURITY COUNCIL IrAS APPRO'IED TBEI I REF<ET 

CCBCCRIO:SG AB APPBOt\CH TO ~ CCMQIC'ATIOO SECURITY. <1l'HER POil'm m 

AB<NK MEMO SCJD:DUIBD FQl USCIB ClllSIDERATION 01f F.BIDAY, l8 JAB 52 3 1lliD REPLY Wri.L 

BB !UmlCCKIBG AT EARLIEST PrSSIBLE DATE TllEREAP'mR 

AFSA FORM 7~1-ClOS 

6 JUL ~,1 TOP SECRET SUEDE 

Declassified and approved for release by NS~ on 03-12-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a