alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Amund O. Royce *vs.*James M. Gray & others.

Feb. *24,*1875.

Justice’s Court — Complaint on Promissory Note — Amendment.—In an action commenced in a justice’s court, upon a promissory note, the complaint was insufficient, because it did not show that defendants made the note, or that plaintiff was the lawful owner or holder thereof. Upon the trial, plaintiff, without objection on the part of the defendants, (who had withdrawn their answer,) introduced in evidence, and delivered to and filed with the justice, a promissory note, executed by defendants as makers to plaintiff as payee, and otherwise answering the description of the note particularly described in the complaint. *Held,*that as the complaint contains a sufficient statement of the •sum due plaintiff from defendants, which sum plaintiff' claims to recover, the delivery of the note to the justice may properly be treated as an amendment of the original complaint, the effect being to make a good complaint in accordance with *$*33, 28, ch. 65, Gen. Stat.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Otter Tail *county, McKelvey,*J., presiding,affirming a judgment of a justice of the peace, from which an appeal had been taken to the district court on questions of law alone.

*Hatch & Williams,*and *Wright & Mason,*for appellants.

*L. JE. Corliss,*for respondent.

Berry, J.

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace. The complaint filed by the plaintiff, upon the return day of the summons, evidently attempts to declare *330upon a promissory note, but fails to state *facts*constituting a cause of action thereon against defendants, because it does not show that defendants made the note, or that plaintiff is the lawful owner or holder thereof.

Upon the trial, however, the plaintiff, without objection on the part of defendants, (who had withdrawn their answer,) introduced in evidence, and delivered to and filed with the justice, a promissory note, executed by defendants as makers to plaintiff as payee, and otherwise answering the description of the note particularly described in the complaint. As the complaint contains a sufficient statement of the sum due the plaintiff from the defendants upon the note, which sum plaintiff claims to recover, we are of opinion, in view of the charity of construction usually extended to proceedings in justices’ courts, that the delivery of the note to the justice may properly be treated as an amendment of the original complaint, the effect of which is to make a good complaint in accordance with §§ 33, 28, ch. 65, Gen. Stat. The former section provides that, in a justice’s court, “the pleadings maybe amended at anytime before the trial, or during the trial, to supply any deficiency or omission in the allegations necessary to support the action or defence;” the latter, that when “the cause of action * * arises * * upon an instrument for the payment of money only, it is sufficient for the party to deliver * * the instrument to the court, and to state that there is due to him thereon, from the adverse party, a specified sum which he claims to recover.” ,

Judgment affirmed.
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [CO-922-06-1310-FI; COC67712]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease.

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease COC67712 from Cutler Exploration, JDW Inc, Nortex Corporation and Rocky Mountain Resources Inc for lands in Moffat County, Colorado. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, Beverly A. Derringer, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at 303. 239.3765.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The lessees have agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16                    2/3                     percent, respectively. The lessees have paid the required $500 administrative fee and $155 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this                     **Federal Register**                     notice. The lessees have met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in section 31 (d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease COC67712 effective June 1, 2004, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.                

Dated: November 8, 2005.

Beverly A. Derringer,

Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication.

[FR Doc. 05-22979 Filed 11-18-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
Case 7:07-cv-03304-KMK-LMS Document 17-7 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-03304-KMK-LMS Document 17-7 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-03304-KMK-LMS Document 17-7 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-03304-KMK-LMS Document 17-7 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 4 of 4
- PREFACE
- ABSTRACT
- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
- CONTENTS
- PROTECTING WORKERS INSIDE ROBOT WORK ZONES
1.1 Who should read these guidelines?
1.2 Programmable motion control
1.3 Tasks inside a robots work zone
1.4 Injury reports
1.5 Future safety concerns

- HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS LOCATIONS
2.1 The robotized workstation
2.2 Causes of unexpected or unintended robot movement
2.3 Results of unintended or unexpected motion
2.4 The hazards of tooling manipulated by the robot
2.5 The hazards of other machines
2.6 Other hazards

- PROTECTIVE DEVICES AND PROCEDURES
3.1 Protective devices
3.2 Presence sensing devices
3.3 Fixed barriers with interlocked gates
3.4 Visual indicators of energy level in the workstation
3.5 Emergency stops
3.6 Full system shutdown switch
3.7 Safe intervention partial shutdown devices
3.8 Single function controls
3.9 Key lock switches
3.10 Moveable interlocked barriers
3.11 Devices for limiting the robot movement zone
3.12 Training and human factors

- SYSTEMATIC METHODS FOR INJURYPREVENTION ANALYSIS
4.1 Benefits of safety analysis
4.2 Job Safety Analysis method
4.3 Fault Tree Analysis
4.4 Diagram for controlling hazardous energy during maintenance and servicing
4.5 The SADT method
4.6 Task observation grid

- MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT FOR ROBOTIC SAFETY
5.1 Maintainability and availability
5.2 Three examples of potential hazard exposure information from maintainability data
5.3 Maintenance policy
5.4 Maintenance intervention reporting

- CONCLUSIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
#### STATE v. ROSEBORO

No. 19P82.

Case below: 55 N.C. App. 205.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 27 January 1982. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 27 January 1982.
Case 1:06-cv-14458-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Bairnco Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth L. Bayne, Vice President Finance & Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, 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), as applicable, 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 result of operations of the Company.







/s/ Kenneth L. Bayne

Kenneth L. Bayne

Vice President Finance &

Chief Financial Officer



#
#### HALL v. PIEDMONT and CRAWLEY v. PIEDMONT

No. 36 PC.

Case below: 33 N.C. App. 637.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 October 1977.
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 32-2 Filed 01/22/2008 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 32-2 Filed 01/22/2008 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 32-2 Filed 01/22/2008 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 32-2 Filed 01/22/2008 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 32-2 Filed 01/22/2008 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-15020-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 4, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132580 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132580 

 COA: 273185 

Wayne CC: 05-008538-01

JOMARC EDWARDS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 23, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Wayne County 

Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after 

the date of this order. 

The application for leave to appeal remains pending. 

p0328 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 4, 2007 

 Clerk
Case 1:07-cv-03384-JCF Document 8 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-15116-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-15153-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03251-JSR Document 2 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### GREENFIELD v. GREENFIELD

No. 157PC

Case below: 49 N.C. App. 545

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 March 1981.
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 41 Filed 07/23/2008 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 41 Filed 07/23/2008 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 41 Filed 07/23/2008 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 41 Filed 07/23/2008 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 41 Filed 07/23/2008 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 41 Filed 07/23/2008 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 41 Filed 07/23/2008 Page 7 of 7
Case 1:06-cv-15106-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15106-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15106-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15106-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15106-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15106-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15106-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15106-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15106-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15106-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15106-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15106-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15106-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03378-GEL Document 18 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03378-GEL Document 18 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03378-GEL Document 18 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03378-GEL Document 18 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 4 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-15082-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### CARR v. CARBON CORP.

No. 177PC

Case below: 49 N.C. App. 631

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 March 1981.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             374
<SECURITIES>                                     1,670
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,057
<ALLOWANCES>                                       427
<INVENTORY>                                      6,587
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,377
<PP&E>                                           1,126
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,073
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,981
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,112
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,369
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,117
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,981
<SALES>                                         15,472
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,495
<CGS>                                           11,240
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,081
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  38
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    136
<INCOME-TAX>                                        49
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        87
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03


</TABLE>
#### Farrel, Appellant, *v.*Scranton Railway Company.

*Appeals*— Time—Quashing *appeal*— Act *of May*19, 1897, *P. L.*67.

Where an appeal is taken eight months after the entry of an order refusing to take off a nonsuit, the appeal -will be quashed. .

Argued Jan. 13, 1905.

Appeal, No. 32, Jan. T., 1905, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Sept. T., 1901, No. 744, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of John M. Far-rel v. Scranton Railway Company.

Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Orlady, Smith, Porter, Morrison and Henderson, JJ.

Appeal quashed.

The following motion to quash was filed:

The appellee by its attorneys, Willard, Warren & Knapp, moves to quash the appeal in the above-stated case, for the reason that the appeal was not taken until more than six months after the final judgment of nonsuit. The record shows that on September 30,1903, a compulsory nonsuit was granted on *128the motion of defendant’s attorney, and on the same day a rule was granted to show cause why the nonsuit should not be stricken off. November 16, 1903, rule to take off the nonsuit was discharged by order made by the president judge on that date.

January 17, 1905 :

The record shows that on July 16, 1904, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the Superior Court, and on the same day gave a bond in the sum of $200, with himself and Peter Scholz as sureties.

The record also shows that on July 18, 1904, a writ of certiorari was issued from the Superior Court, returnable the second Monday of January, 1905.

The judgment of nonsuit became final on November 16, 1903. An appeal was taken just eight months after the final judgment of nonsuit.

By the Act of May 19, 1897, P. L. 67, it is provided all appeals shall be taken within six months from the entry of the sentence, order, judgment or decree appealed from; also that appeals taken after the time herein provided for shall be quashed on motion.

*L. P. Wedeman,*with him *F. F. Boyle,*for appellant.

*F. FT. Willard,*of *Willard, Warren Knapp,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

Appeal quashed.
Case 1:07-cv-03211-PKC Document 7 Filed 05/31/2007 Page 1 of 1
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 PrimeEnergy Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles E. Drimal Jr., Chief Executive Officer of PrimeEnergy Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

 

/s/ Charles E. Drimal Jr.

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

Chief Executive Officer

May 15, 2007 

 

 

EXHIBIT 32.2

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 PrimeEnergy Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Beverly A. Cummings, Chief Financial Officer of PrimeEnergy Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of the Corporation.

 

 

 

/s/ Beverly A. Cummings

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

Chief Financial Officer

May 15, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM OCEAN
BIO-CHEM, INC. FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               8,871
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,355,712
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (26,000)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,691,877
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,276,683
<PP&E>                                           5,229,794
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (854,803)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,846,794
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,320,036
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            37,530
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,419,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,846,794
<SALES>                                         12,705,473
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,802,647
<CGS>                                            9,044,501 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0                   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,276,714 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0         
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 366,994   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    114,438   
<INCOME-TAX>                                        31,379    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 83,509    
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0         
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                          (26,652)
<NET-INCOME>                                        56,407    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .02       
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .02       
                                                      

</TABLE>
#### IN RE BOYLES

No. 135 PC.

Case below: 38 N.C. App. 389.

Petition by respondent for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 January 1979. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 January 1979.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1725 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1725

  To permit occupational therapists to conduct the initial assessment 
 visit and complete the comprehensive assessment under a Medicare home 
         health plan of care for certain rehabilitation cases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 5, 2019

 Mr. Cardin (for himself and Mr. Young) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To permit occupational therapists to conduct the initial assessment 
 visit and complete the comprehensive assessment under a Medicare home 
         health plan of care for certain rehabilitation cases.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act 
of 2019''.

SEC. 2. PERMITTING OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS TO CONDUCT THE INITIAL 
              ASSESSMENT VISIT AND COMPLETE THE COMPREHENSIVE 
              ASSESSMENT UNDER A MEDICARE HOME HEALTH PLAN OF CARE FOR 
              CERTAIN REHABILITATION CASES.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 484.55(a)(2) or 
484.55(b)(3) of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations, or any other 
provision of law, an occupational therapist may be designated to 
conduct the initial assessment visit and to complete the comprehensive 
assessment for an individual who is eligible for home health services 
under title XVIII of the Social Security Act if the referral order by 
the physician--
            (1) does not include skilled nursing care;
            (2) includes occupational therapy; and
            (3) includes physical therapy or speech language pathology.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall be 
construed to provide for initial eligibility for coverage of home 
health services under title XVIII of the Social Security Act solely on 
the basis of a need for occupational therapy.
                                 <all>
```
#### MAYBANK v. KRESGE CO.

No. 286 PC

No. 109 (Fall Term)

Case below: 46 NC App 687

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 15 August 1980.