alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Andrew B. Robbins *vs.*Walter X. Morgan.

Argued Jan. 24, 1894.

Affirmed Jan. 30, 1894.

No. 8561.

Finding supported by the evidence.

Evidence *held*to justify a finding of fact.

Effect of making time of the essence of the agreement.

A contract, assumed to make time of performance of the essence of the contract as to each party, *held*not to disable .one party, who fully performed within the time, to require performance by the other after the time.

Appeal by defendant, Walter X. Morgan, from a judgment of the District Court of Hennepin County, *Charles M. Pond,*J., entered August 21,1893, against him for $454.76.

*S. R. Child,*for appellant.

*Wilson, & Van Derlip,*for respondent.

Gilfillan, C. J.

Action on a contract by which plaintiff agreed to-convey certain real estate to the defendant, at the price of $500, to *305be paid by the defendant delivering to plaintiff, at such times as he might require, building stone, at the market price, within two years from the date of the contract; the plaintiff to pay two-thirds in cash for the stone delivered, the other third to apply in' payment for the real estate. A clause made time of the essence of the contract.

Plaintiff conveyed within the two years, but defendant delivered only part of the stone in payment, and this action is to recover the remainder of the price.

The court finds as a fact that, soon after the expiration of the two years specified in the contract, the plaintiff demanded of defendant to furnish and deliver stone to him in accordance with the terms of the contract, to the extent of paying the remainder due thereon, and that defendant refused and still refuses to do so.

This we construe to be a finding that the plaintiff made such demand as was incumbent on him to make under the contract, and there was evidence to justify the finding; such evidence being that defendant took no exception to the manner of the demand, and did not insist upon or suggest anything to be done by plaintiff to make the demand good, but based his refusal solely on the ground that he could not afford to deliver the stone at the market price, and he would not do it. ,

The finding disposes of all the points made by appellant but one.

That one is that, by the terms of the contract, time was of the essence of the contract as to each party. Conceding this to be so-, its only effect would be that either party must perform or tender performance within the two years, to enable him to enforce performance by the other. But it would not have the effect claimed by the appellant, to wit, that, though one of them had fully performed within the two years, he could not require performance by the other after that time. On that proposition, as plaintiff conveyed the land, but did not demand pay for it within the time, defendant may keep the land without paying for it; and if, within the time, defendant had paid in full, but had not demanded a conveyance, plaintiff might have kept the price and the land too. A statement of the proposition is the only refutation needed, in the absence of unmistakable terms to bring about that result.

Judgment affirmed.

(Opinion published 57 N. W. Rep. 799.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

SHAUNA JACKSON, 

Plaintiff, 

1: 16-CV-00216-MC 

vs. 

NANCY BERRYHILL, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

ORDER 

It is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees in the amount of $4,621.40 and costs for filing 

fees in the amount of $400 shall be awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice 

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Attorney fees will be paid to Plaintiff's attorney, dependent upon 

verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies for offset against the awarded fees and 

costs, pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 

(2010). 

If Plaintiff has no such debt, then the check shall be made out to Plaintiff's attorney and 

mailed to Plaintiff's attorney's office as follows: Merrill Schneider, P.O. Box 14490, Portland, 

OR 97293. If Plaintiff has a debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt 

shall be made to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiffs attorney's office at the address stated above. 

DA TED this {o day of __ S_e.._p_.+_. ___ , 2017. 

\___L-__ 

Michael McShane 

United States District Court Judge
Exhibit 32.2



Informational Addendum to Report on Form 10-Q

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



Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



The undersigned Chief Financial Officer of OYO Geospace Corporation does hereby certify as follows:



Solely for the purpose of meeting the requirements of
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely to the extent this certification may be applicable to this Report on Form 10-Q, the undersigned hereby certify that this Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OYO Geospace Corporation.



/s/    Thomas T. McEntireName:

Thomas T. McEntireTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerFebruary 6, 2006
- 51 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

302 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. MUELLER

Cite as 302 Neb. 51

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. 

Zachary A. Mueller, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed January 18, 2019. No. S-17-387.

supplemental opinion

Appeal from the District Court for Morrill County: Leo P. 

Dobrovolny, Judge. Supplemental opinion: Former opinion 

modified. Motion for rehearing overruled.

Sarah P. Newell, of Nebraska Commission on Public 

Advocacy, for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Stacy M. Foust 

for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller‐Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, and

Papik, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the 

appellant, Zachary A. Mueller, concerning our opinion in State 

v. Mueller.

1

 We overrule the motion, but we modify the opinion 

as follows:

In the statement of facts section, we withdraw the word “no” 

in the second sentence in the 16th paragraph and substitute the 

word “another” in the quotation.2

1 State v. Mueller, 301 Neb. 778, 920 N.W.2d 424 (2018).

2 Id. at 786, 920 N.W.2d at 432.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

03/22/2019 01:08 PM CDT
- 52 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

302 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. MUELLER

Cite as 302 Neb. 51

In the analysis section, we withdraw the fifth paragraph3

under the subheading “Venue Instruction” and substitute the 

following:

We note that although Mueller argued that the court 

should have given a venue instruction based on § 29-1306, 

he did not actually tender such an instruction, and that 

therefore, to the extent Mueller asserts on appeal that the 

court erred when it refused a requested instruction, under 

the applicable standards set forth above, we do not ordinarily review whether the “tendered instruction” was a 

correct statement of the law or whether it was warranted 

by the evidence. See State v. Swindle, 300 Neb. 734, 

915 N.W.2d 795 (2018). Here, we can review whether 

the venue instruction the court actually gave was proper 

under the circumstances; a consideration of whether the 

instruction should have included the content of § 29-1306 

is an incidental part of that analysis.

The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.

 Former opinion modified.

 Motion for rehearing overruled.

Freudenberg, J., not participating.

3 Id. at 791, 920 N.W.2d at 435.
# L_2010252EN.01018101.xml

| 25.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 252/181 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 252/181

---

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

of 5 May 2010

on the closure of the accounts of the European Railway Agency for the financial year 2008

(2010/535/EU)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Railway Agency for the financial year 2008,

having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Railway Agency for the financial year 2008, together with the Agency’s replies (1),

having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 16 February 2010 (5827/2010 — C7-0061/2010),

having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 establishing a European Railway Agency (3), and in particular Article 39 thereof,

having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (4), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A7-0084/2010),

| 1. | Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Railway Agency for the financial year 2008; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this Decision to the Executive Director of the European Railway Agency, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The President

Jerzy BUZEK

The Secretary-General

Klaus WELLE

---

(1)  
  OJ C 304, 15.12.2009, p. 89.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

3

(4)  
  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

4

---
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

October 1-2, 2003

List of Attachments

No. Title Presenter / Author

1 Attendance Sheets

2a

2b

Review of Results and Recommendations from the GCMRC

2000-2003 Remote Sensing Initiative for Monitoring

Environmental Resources within the Colorado River

Ecosystem

Remote Sensing Initiative PowerPoint presentation

Phil Davis

3 Fine Grained Sediment Inventory and Change Detection in

the Grand Canyon River Corridor Using Airborne Digital

Imagery PowerPoint Presentation

Mike Breedlove

4 Flow and Transport Models of the Colorado River through

the Grand Canyon

Steve Wiele

5a

5b

AGFD Stranding PowerPoint Presentation

Stranding Report

Wendy Batham

6a

6b

Mechanical Removal Update PowerPoint Presentation

Implications of Budget Reductions Associated with RBT Diet

Analysis at the LCR ...(Fact Sheet)

Mike Yard

7 NPS Updates Bill Leibfried

8 HBC Comprehensive Plan Glen Knowles

9 Science Symposium Draft Agenda Jeff Lovich

11 Core Monitoring PowerPoint presentation Steve Gloss
NRCS 977 - CROWDER FLATLatitude: 41.893Longitude: -120.752Elevation: None

NRCS 977 - Crowder Flat

Courtesy NRCS - Go to State Line Site Page...



State Line

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Strawberry Site Page...



Strawberry

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Crowder Flat Site Page...



Crowder Flat
# L_2009199EN.01001401.xml

| 31.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 199/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 199/14

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 694/2009

of 30 July 2009

on the issue of import licences for applications lodged for the period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 748/2008 for frozen thin skirt of bovine animals

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 748/2008 of 30 July 2008 on the opening and administration of an import tariff quota for frozen thin skirt of bovine animals falling within CN code 0206 29 91 (3) opens an import tariff quota for beef and veal products. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 748/2008 of 30 July 2008 on the opening and administration of an import tariff quota for frozen thin skirt of bovine animals falling within CN code 0206 29 91 (3) opens an import tariff quota for beef and veal products.

| (2) | The applications for import licences lodged for the period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 relate to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined and an allocation coefficient laid down to be applied to the quantities applied for, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The applications for import licences lodged for the period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 relate to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined and an allocation coefficient laid down to be applied to the quantities applied for,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities for which import licence applications covered by the quota with the order number 09.4020 have been lodged for the period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 under Regulation (EC) No 748/2008 shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 9,164852 %.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 31 July 2009.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 July 2009.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 202, 31.7.2008, p. 28.

3

---
# L_2009278EN.01000301.xml

| 23.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 278/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 278/3

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 990/2009

of 22 October 2009

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 23 October 2009.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 October 2009.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.

2

---

ANNEX

Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

| (EUR/100 kg) |
| --- |
| CN code | Third country code (1) | Standard import value |
| 0702 00 00 | MA | 42,2 |
| MK | 21,6 |
| TR | 55,3 |
| ZZ | 39,7 |
| 0707 00 05 | MK | 31,4 |
| TR | 124,3 |
| ZZ | 77,9 |
| 0709 90 70 | MA | 66,0 |
| TR | 111,9 |
| ZZ | 89,0 |
| 0805 50 10 | AR | 43,3 |
| CL | 83,5 |
| TR | 71,9 |
| US | 56,3 |
| ZA | 83,5 |
| ZZ | 67,7 |
| 0806 10 10 | BR | 218,5 |
| EG | 80,3 |
| TR | 119,8 |
| US | 248,7 |
| ZZ | 166,8 |
| 0808 10 80 | CL | 114,8 |
| MK | 16,1 |
| NZ | 81,4 |
| US | 79,3 |
| ZA | 72,7 |
| ZZ | 72,9 |
| 0808 20 50 | CN | 54,9 |
| TR | 85,0 |
| ZA | 70,1 |
| ZZ | 70,0 |

(EUR/100 kg)

CN code

Third country code (1)

Standard import value

0702 00 00

MA

42,2

MK

21,6

TR

55,3

ZZ

39,7

0707 00 05

MK

31,4

TR

124,3

ZZ

77,9

0709 90 70

MA

66,0

TR

111,9

ZZ

89,0

0805 50 10

AR

43,3

CL

83,5

TR

71,9

US

56,3

ZA

83,5

ZZ

67,7

0806 10 10

BR

218,5

EG

80,3

TR

119,8

US

248,7

ZZ

166,8

0808 10 80

CL

114,8

MK

16,1

NZ

81,4

US

79,3

ZA

72,7

ZZ

72,9

0808 20 50

CN

54,9

TR

85,0

ZA

70,1

ZZ

70,0

---

(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
  ZZ
  ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

---
NORTH FORK GUNNISON RIVER ABOVE MOUTH NEAR LAZEARLatitude: 38.471Longitude: -107.5Elevation: 9403

NORTH FORK GUNNISON RIVER ABOVE MOUTH NEAR LAZEAR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cochetopa Pass Site Page...



Cochetopa Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sargents Mesa Site Page...



Sargents Mesa

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Taylor Site Page...



Upper Taylor

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wager Gulch Site Page...



Wager Gulch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Butte Site Page...



Butte

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Park Cone Site Page...



Park Cone

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Porphyry Creek Site Page...



Porphyry Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Schofield Pass Site Page...



Schofield Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Slumgullion Site Page...



Slumgullion
# L_2015272EN.01001501.xml

| 16.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 272/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 272/15

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services, and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 300 of 14 November 2009
  )

On page 92, Article 5(2):

for:

‘2.   Special regular services shall include:

| (a) | the carriage of workers between home and work; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the carriage of workers between home and work;

| (b) | the carriage of school pupils and students to and from the educational institution.
  The fact that a special service may be varied according to the needs of users shall not affect its classification as a regular service.
  Special regular services shall not be subject to authorisation in accordance with Chapter III where they are covered by a contract concluded between the organiser and the carrier.’, |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the carriage of school pupils and students to and from the educational institution.

The fact that a special service may be varied according to the needs of users shall not affect its classification as a regular service.

Special regular services shall not be subject to authorisation in accordance with Chapter III where they are covered by a contract concluded between the organiser and the carrier.’,

read:

‘2.   Special regular services shall include in particular:

| (a) | the carriage of workers between home and work; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the carriage of workers between home and work;

| (b) | the carriage of school pupils and students to and from the educational institution.
  The fact that a special service may be varied according to the needs of users shall not affect its classification as a regular service.
  Special regular services shall not be subject to authorisation in accordance with Chapter III where they are covered by a contract concluded between the organiser and the carrier.’. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the carriage of school pupils and students to and from the educational institution.

The fact that a special service may be varied according to the needs of users shall not affect its classification as a regular service.

Special regular services shall not be subject to authorisation in accordance with Chapter III where they are covered by a contract concluded between the organiser and the carrier.’.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-7570

HENRY CLIFFORD BYRD, SR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.

Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge.

(CR-83-52, CA-97-1047-1)

Submitted: February 26, 1998

Decided: March 24, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Henry Clifford Byrd, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from an order of the magistrate judge dismissing

without prejudice his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West

1994 & Supp. 1997). We remand for further proceedings.

Absent consent of the parties to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction

to enter final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994), this court

has no jurisdiction to review a magistrate judge's order. See

Silberstein v. Silberstein, 859 F.2d 40, 41-42 (7th Cir. 1988); Parks

ex rel. Parks v. Collins, 761 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1982). The record

before the court does not reflect consent of the parties to the magistrate judge's exercise of jurisdiction or referral of the action to the

magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

We accordingly grant a certificate of appealability and remand the

case for determination by the district court. We dispense with oral

argument because the fact and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

REMANDED

 2