alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(8 App. Div. 309)

#### RIDABOCK v. METROPOLITAN EL. RY. CO. et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 31, 1896.)

Costs on Appeal—Stenographers’ Fees.

The amount paid for a copy of the stenographer’s minutes obtained for the purpose of properly preparing amendments to the case on appeal is a taxable disbursement.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by William S. Ridabock against the Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company and another for an injunction and damages." Plaintiff obtained a judgment, from which defendants appealed to the appellate division, where it was affirmed. 39 N. Y. Supp. 1131. On the taxation of costs the clerk refused to allow plaintiff to tax the- amount paid for the stenographer’s minutes used in preparing amendments to defendants’ case on appeal. A motion for a retaxation of costs was denied, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before BARRETT, RUMSEY, PATTERSON, and INGRAHAM, JJ.

*939S. T. Cannon and Wilfrid N. O’Neil, for appellant.

Davies & Rapallo, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The rule in this department is that the amount paid for a copy of the stenographer’s minutes, obtained for the purpose of properly preparing amendments to the case on appeal, is a taxable disbursement. Sebley v. Nichols, 32 How. Prac. 182; Cutter v. Morris, 7 N. Y. St. Rep. Stevens v. Railroad Co. (Super. N. Y.) 9 N: Y. Supp. 707. The cases contra deal mainly with minutes obtained for use upon the trial. It is said, however, in Pfaudler Co. v. Sargent, 43 Hun, 154, that the stenographer’s fees are not taxable, even when procured for the purpose of enabling a party to prepare amendments to a case. This was not necessary to the decision of that case, and it seems to overlook rule 32 of the general rules of practice, which provides that, “if the party proposing the amendments claims that the case should be made to conform to the minutes of the stenographer, he must refer at the end of each amendment to the proper page of such minutes.” The respondent is thus practically compelled to procure the- stenographer’s minutes if he desires a fair .and truthful record. He can only obtain this by complying with the rule. Thus the rule, in substance, makes the disbursement “necessary, according to the course and practice of the court,” as provided in section 3256 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant here presented an affidavit tq the clerk to the effect that “the copy of the stenographer’s minutes was actually and necessarily obtained and used for the purpose of preparing the amendments of plaintiff to the defendants’ proposed case on appeal.” Under the circumstances, we think the item should have been allowed.

The order appealed from should therefore be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion for a retaxation granted, with $10 costs, and the item allowed. '
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM INTERIM
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q COMMUNICATIONS & POWER
INDUSTRIES HOLDING CORPORATION FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001000654
<NAME> COMMUNICATIONS & POWER INDUSTRIES HOLDING CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,022
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,274
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     62,727
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               121,380
<PP&E>                                          71,141
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 232,342
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           98,216
<BONDS>                                        113,137
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           27,206
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            49
<OTHER-SE>                                    (24,766)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   232,342
<SALES>                                        181,697
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               181,697
<CGS>                                          139,772
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  139,772
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,585
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,908
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,291)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       571
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,862)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,862)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2171 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2171

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 21, 1998

                 Referred to the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
   construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Arkansas.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINES.

    Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of the Federal 
Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
upon the request of the licensee for FERC Project No. 10455 (and after 
reasonable notice), is authorized, in accordance with the good faith, 
due diligence and public interest requirements of section 13 and the 
Commission's procedures under such section, to extend the time required 
for commencement of construction of the project for up to a maximum of 
three consecutive two-year periods. This section shall take effect for 
the project upon the expiration of the extension (issued by the 
Commission under section 13) of the period required for commencement of 
such project.

            Passed the Senate October 2, 1998.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

MICHAEL RAMON OCHOA,

Petitioner

v.

DR. ARTHUR LEVINE, ET AL,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 134 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16th day of September, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
#### LEWIS v. GROSVENOR.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 14, 1896.)

No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT
ART ASH E S PE T RO SYAN,

Pe t i tione r, v. L O RE T T A E . L YNCH , Attor ne y G e ne r al, R e sponde nt. No. 10-71729 Age n c y No. A099-445-924 M E M O RANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 22, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : K O Z INSKI , W . FL E T CH E R and G O UL D , C irc uit Judge s. 1. W e de ny

Pe trosy an’ s pe tition for re v ie w of the a ge nc y ’ s de n ia l of his
a pplic a tions for a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l be c a

use the a ge n c y ’ s a dve rse c re d ibility

finding wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e v ide nc e . Se e Shre stha v. Holde r, 

# FIL ED DEC 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).pa ge 2

590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th C ir. 2010). In his de c la ra tion, Pe trosy an de sc ribe d his pe rsona l e xpe rie nc e using sim ila r or ide ntic a l la

n gua g e to portions of a

n e arlie r publishe d Hum an R ights W a t c h a rtic le . Pe trosy an attribute s the sim ila rity to the fa c t tha t m any pe ople we re a t the de sc ribe d ra lly . B ut this doe sn’ t a ddre ss why his
a c c ount of thee ve nts re pe a ts se nte nc e s a nd de ta ils from

the Hum a

n R i ghts W a tc h
artic le ve rba tim
. Abse nt a pla usible e xpla

nation, thea ge nc y

re a sona bly c onc lude d that Pe trosy an’ s a c c ount of thea lle ge d pe rse c ution wa s not ge nuine
. The a ge n c y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding is further supporte d by the disc re pa nc ie s be twe e n

Pe trosy an’ s te stim o ny

an d his a unt’ s. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii). His a

unt fa i le d to c orroborate Pe trosy an’ s te stim ony tha t he ha d be e n a

rre ste d in Arm e nia . Inste a d, she te s tifie d tha t she didn’ t

know a ny one in the fam ily , othe r tha

n Pe trosy an ’ s fat

he r, who ha d be e n

arre ste d in Arm e nia . She
a lso te s tifie d tha

t she thought Pe trosy an’ s fathe r wa s still in Arme nia whe n Pe trosy an de pa

rte d Arm e nia

for the Unite d State s , e ve n though Pe trosy an te stifie d that his fa the r le ft Arm e nia be fore he did. 2. Pe trosy an wa i ve d his c la im for prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture by

fa iling to ra ise it in his ope ning brie f. Se e B a lse r v. De p’ t. of Justic e , 327 F.3d 903, 911 (9th C ir. 2003). B ut e v e n if it wa sn’ t wa ive d, this c la im wouldpa ge 3

fa il be c a use othe r tha

n his own inc re dible te stim ony , Pe trosy an doe sn’ t point to
any e vide nc e tha

t c om p e ls us to c onc l ude tha

t it’ s m ore like l y tha

n not tha t he would be torture d if re turne d to Arm e nia
. DE NIE D.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

DEBORAH A. ALEXANDER 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Commissioner, Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant. 

BROWN, Judge. 

6:15-cv-01960-SB 

ORDER 

Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman issued Findings and 

Recommendation (#20) on January 5, 2017, in which she recommends 

this Court reverse the Commissioner's decision denying 

Plaintiff's application for supplemental security income benefits 

and disability insurance benefits, and grant in part and deny in 

part the Commissioner's Motion in her Response Brief (#18) to 

remand this matter for further administrative proceedings. The 

Magistrate Judge recommends the matter be remanded for an 

immediate award of benefits. The matter is now before this Court 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B) and Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 72 (b). 

1 - ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01960-SB Document 22 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 2
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its 

obligation to review the record de novo. See Dawson v. Marshall, 

561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009) See also United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane). 

Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not 

find any error. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman's Findings and 

Recommendation (#20). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the 

Commissioner's Motion (#18) to Remand this matter for further 

administrative proceedings, GRANTS the Commissioner's Motion to 

Remand as modified, and REMANDS this matter pursuant to sentence 

four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for an immediate award of benefits. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this~ day of February, 2017. 

United States District Judge 

2 - ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01960-SB Document 22 Filed 02/02/17 Page 2 of 2
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Pest Management Research: Sidney, MT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NPARL
                        Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory
                                    Agricultural Systems Research Unit
                                    Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and ManagementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Sidney, Montana Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory Pest Management Research PMRU Docs Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and Management: Outbreak and Survey Info





- NPARL Home
- PMRU Home
- ASRU Home
- Site Highlights
- Outbreak and Survey Info
- ID Tools | Apps
- Grasshopper Management
- IPM Handbook
- USDA Research | Contact Info

Outbreak Info: 2013 Mormon Cricket Hazard Mapheadline bar /ARSUserFiles/30320505/grasshopper/Extras/images/Maps/HZ_MC2013.jpg Return to Outbreak Info


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
(18 Misc. Rep. 610.)

#### FREEMAN v. UNITED STATES GRAND LODGE.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

December 12, 1896.)

Beneficial Associations—Expulsio.n op Members—Evidence.

Expulsion of a member of a benefit society for nonpayment of dues and installments, notice not having been given as required by the constitution *475and by-laws of the society, is not conclusively shown by the testimony of its secretary that the member was expelled, and the minutes of the meeting, at which the secretary testified the member was expelled, not being in evidence.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by Leah Freeman against the United States Grand Lodge, etc. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before VAN WYCK, C. J., and O’DWYER, J.

Al. D. Lind, for appellant.

Edwin F. Stern, for respondent.

VAN WYCK, C. J.

The appellant’s counsel, by his brief and argument, concedes that the evidence was sufficient to justify the submission of the case to the jury, in the absence of a motion by him, at the close of the case, to direct a verdict for defendant. The plaintiff was the widow of a member of defendant’s benevolent association, and sued to recover the $500 to which such widow was entitled upon the death of such married member. The only real dispute made by defendant was that the deceased had been dropped from the roll of membership for nonpayment of dues and death assessments, and, as to this, conceded that they had not given the notice of such action which was required by the constitution and by-laws, but endeavored to supply proof of a waiver by deceased of such required notice, by having its secretary give oral evidence of admissions made by deceased to him; nor did it produce its minute or other books showing entries of their official action at the meeting at which this secretary said the deceased was expelled. Much of this evidence would certainly have been excluded if duly objected to by plaintiff. The jury’s verdict, under the proofs as made by defendant, is not against the weight of evidence, and should not be disturbed.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Gregory J. Dawson, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kentucky Bancshares,
Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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
quarterly report is being prepared;
(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 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 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 function):
(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 14, 2004
BY  /s/ Gregory J. Dawson
Gregory J. Dawson
Chief Financial Officer

2
Lexlibrary/197885.1
# C_2006246EN.01000501.xml

| 13.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/5

---

Amendment by France of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services between Strasbourg and Milan (Malpensa)

(2006/C 246/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | France has decided to amend, with effect from 25 March 2007, the public service obligation imposed on scheduled air services between Strasbourg and Milan (Malpensa/Linate/Bergamo) published in the
  Official Journal of the European Communities No C 257 of 25 October 2003 pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes. |
| --- | --- |

1.

France has decided to amend, with effect from 25 March 2007, the public service obligation imposed on scheduled air services between Strasbourg and Milan (Malpensa/Linate/Bergamo) published in the
  Official Journal of the European Communities No C 257 of 25 October 2003 pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes.

Official Journal of the European Communities

2.   The public service obligation is as follows:

2.1.   Minimum frequency and capacity

The minimum level of service provided between Strasbourg and Milan must be two round trips per day from Monday to Friday, all year round except for the month of August, when there must be a minimum of one round trip per day, from Monday to Friday. The flights in question must be non-stop.

2.2.   Type of aircraft used and minimum capacity provided

The services must be operated by aircraft with at least 25 seats.

2.3.   Timetables

The first flight in the day departing from Milan must leave at a time that enables flights from Italian cities and other European countries to connect.

The timetable must coincide with parliamentary sessions, i.e. arriving at Strasbourg close to but no later than 14:00 for the session beginning at 15:00 and leaving Strasbourg close to but no earlier than 17:00, when the sessions end.

The two daily rotations must enable passengers to make a return trip in one day.

2.4.   Flight bookings

Seats on these flights must be marketed by a computerised booking system.

2.5.   Continuity of service

Except in cases of force majeure, the number of flights cancelled for reasons directly attributable to the carrier must not exceed 2 % of the number of flights scheduled in any IATA scheduling season. The carrier must give a minimum of six months' notice before discontinuing these services.

Community carriers are hereby informed that the operation of air services without regard to the abovementioned public service obligation may result in administrative and/or criminal penalties.

---