alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

          - 26 CFR Parts 1, 31, 40, and 301
          - [REG-153340-09]
          - RIN 1545-BJ13

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking.

# SUMMARY:

This document cancels a public hearing on proposed regulation relating to Federal tax deposits (FTDs) by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT). The proposed regulations affect all taxpayers that currently use FTD coupons.

# DATES:

The public hearing, originally scheduled for September 27, 2010 at 10 a.m. is cancelled.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Regina Johnson of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration) at (202) 622-7180 (not a toll-free number).

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing that appeared in the                     **Federal Register**                     on Thursday, August                           ( print page 59173)                        26, 2010, (75 FR 52485) announced that a public hearing was scheduled for September 27, 2010 at 10 a.m. in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the public hearing is under section 7430 of the Internal Revenue Code.                

The public comment period for these regulations expired on September 22, 2010. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the hearing were due on September 20, 2010. The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit a request to speak, and an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of Wednesday, September 22, 2010, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for September 27, 2010, is cancelled.

LaNita Van Dyke,

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2010-24155 Filed 9-24-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Written StatementPursuant To18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

The undersigned,Paul E. Ross, the Chief Financial Officer of Meade Instruments Corp. (the “Company”),pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, hereby certifies that:

           (i)  the Form 10-K for the fiscal yearended February 28, 2007 of the Company (the “Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

         (ii)  the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

Date: June1, 2007
| By:                                          | /s/ PAUL E.  ROSS |   |
|----------------------------------------------|-------------------|--------|
| *Senior Vice President—Finance and CFO* |

 

----
060412-F-JZ507-667.JPG
            MAJOR GENERAL TIMOTHY  J. DACEY JR.Maj. Gen. Timothy J. Dacey Jr., is chief of staff, Headquarters Strategic Air Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Neb. General Dacey was born in Marshfield, Mass., in 1917. He graduated from Boston College High School, Boston, Mass., in 1934 and from Boston College in 1939 with a bachelor of arts degree. He began his military career as an aviation cadet in May 1940 and received his pilot wings and commission as a second lieutenant in the Army Air Corps in December 1940. His first assignment after flying school was as flying instructor with the Air Training Command at Randolph Field, Texas. He later became a squadron commander at Randolph Field and then chief of the Standardization Board of the Central Flying Instructors' School at Waco, Texas. In 1945 he was assigned to the Far East Command where he served as operations staff officer with the 13th Fighter Command located in the Philippine Islands. He later served as commander of Tacloban Air Field, Leyte. He returned to the United States in July 1946 and in July 1947 joined the recently organized Strategic Air Command. His subsequent assignments have all been with that command. He served as a B-29 pilot and later as executive officer of the 509th Bombardment Wing, Walker Air Force Base, N.M., from July 1947 to December 1950 when he was assigned to Headquarters Strategic Air Command as deputy chief, Military Personnel Division, Directorate of Personnel. General Dacey went to England in August 1954 and was assigned as commander, Royal Air Force Station, Upper Heyford. Under his command this base won the highly coveted American Ambassador's annual award for two consecutive years. The award is presented to the United States unit in the United Kingdom that has the best community relations program. Upon his return to the United States in 1957 he was again assigned to Headquarters Strategic Air Command at Offutt Air Force Base as deputy chief of staff. In October 1960 General Dacey was transferred to Westover Air Force Base, Mass., as vice commander of the 4050th Air Refueling Wing, a KC-135 organization of the Eighth Air Force, and one year later became commander of the wing. In August 1962 he was named chief of staff, Eighth Air Force. He became commander of the 72d Bombardment Wing, Ramey Air Force Base, Puerto Rico in August 1965. After returning to the United States in July 1966 he was reassigned to Headquarters Strategic Air Command and served as director of personnel (later redesignated deputy chief of staff for personnel) until January 1969 when he assumed duties as chief of staff. He is rated a command pilot with more than 6,000 flying hours, including jet time in the B-52 and KC-135 aircraft. His military decorations include the Legion of Merit and the Air Force Commendation Medal. (Current as of Aug. 1, 1969)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0356

______________________________________________________________________________

DONALD AARON HESSER, JR.

,

 Petitioner and Appellant

 vs.

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Respondent and Appellee.

______________________________________________________________________________

Order Extending Deadline to File Opening Brief

______________________________________________________________________________

Upon reviewing the Petitioner/Appellant’s Second Unopposed Motion to 

Extension of Deadline to File Appellant’s Opening Brief, good cause exists to grant 

the motion. Pursuant to the authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until October 31, 2023, to file and serve the 

opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 28 2023

09/28/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0356
#### G., C. & S. F. R’y Co. v. W. L. Jones.

(No. 3603.)

Appeal from Johnson County.

*(Transferred from Austin. J*

Smith & Clark and W. B. Dunham, counsel for appellant.

Poindexter & Paddleford, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 14. *Assignee of claim for damages may sue thereon m his own name; case stated.*Mrs. Pode Johnson, surviving widow of Paddy Johnson, deceased, rented to appellee certain land, a portion of the homestead of herself and deceased husband, and which homestead she continued to occupy after her husband’s death. Appellee was to *34cultivate the land during the year 1882, and pay as rent therefor, to Mrs. Johnson, one-third the crops produced. During that year there occurred a heavy rain-fall which caused the land to overflow with water, and the crops growing thereon were totally destroyed. Appellee brought this suit against appellant to recover damages for the loss of the crops, alleging that said overflow was caused by the unskilful and negligent construction of appellant’s railroad across a certain creek, whereby said creek was obstructed and the natural flow of the water thereof diverted so as to overflow said land. Prior to the institution of the suit Mrs. Johnson assigned to appellee all her interest in the claim, for damages herein sued upon. This she undoubtedly had the legal right to do, and such assignment vested in appellee the right of action for her interest in the damages, as well as for his own interest therein. ■ [R. R. Co. v. Freeman, *57*Tex. 156.]

§ 15. *Surviving widow may sue alone for damage done to homestead or crops growing thereon; children of deceased husband are not necessary parties to such suit; case, overruled.*On the trial it appeared in evidence that Paddy Johnson, deceased, left surviving him four children. Appellant contends that these children owned an interest in the damages claimed which could not be assigned by the widow, and were necessary parties to this suit. *Held:*This position is supported by the decision of this court in the case of the Mo. Pac. R’y Co. v. Teague [2 W. Con. Rep. p. 685], but the contrary doctrine has been held by our supreme court in the case of I. & G. N. R. R. Co. v. Timmerman, 61 Tex. 660. Believing that our view of the question as announced in the Teague case is erroneous, we overrule that decision and adopt the view announced by our supreme court in the Timmerman case, which is, that the surviving widow, as the head of a family, is entitled, during her life-time, to the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the homestead, and may maintain, in her own name and right, an *35action to recover damages to such homestead or the crops thereon growing; and although there may be surviving children of the deceased, they are not necessary parties plaintiff to such suit.

November 4, 1885.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 21.1

                        U.S. RESTAURANT PROPERTIES, INC.

                  LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997


Following are the subsidiaries of U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. as of
December 31, 1997 together with their ownership interests as of that date.

U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc:

         Subsidiary:                                      Ownership Interest

   USRP Managing, Inc.                                           100.00%
   U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P.                      90.71%

USRP Managing, Inc.

         Subsidiary:                                      Ownership Interest

   U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P.                       1.00%

U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P.

         Subsidiary:                                      Ownership Interest

   Restaurant Property Partners, L.P.                            100.00%
   USRP (West Virginia) Partners, L.P.                           100.00%
   Restaurant Renovation Partners, L.P.                          100.00%
   USRP (Carolina), Ltd.                                         100.00%
   USRP (Lincoln), Ltd.                                          100.00%
   USRP (Norman), Ltd.                                           100.00%
   USRP (Consolidating), LLC                                     100.00%
   USRP (Dee Dee), LLC                                           100.00%
   USRP (Sybra), LLC                                             100.00%
   USRP (Ribbit), LLC                                            100.00%
   USRP (Jones), LLC                                             100.00%
   USRP (Central Avenue), LLC                                    100.00%
   USRP (Midon), LLC                                             100.00%
   USRP (Susi), LLC                                              100.00%
   USRP (Minnesota), LLC                                         100.00%
   USRP (Acquisition), LLC                                       100.00%
   USRP (Popeye's), LLC                                          100.00%
583 A.2d 320

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN TROY BAKER.

February 13, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30784

Conference Calendar

 

ALTON J. CHAISSON, III,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BREAUX ET AL.,

 Defendants,

DON BREAUX ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-1183

- - - - - - - - - -

August 20, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Alton J. Chaisson, III appeals from the district court’s

grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in the civil

rights action that his deceased father, Alton Chaisson, Jr.,

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. Chaisson

argues that the evidence was sufficient to create a genuine issue

of material fact as to whether prison officials at Louisiana 
No. 97-30784

-2-

Parish Correctional Center (LPCC) provided the plaintiff with

inadequate medical care. He further argues that LPCC officials

violated the plaintiff’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause

by discriminating against him on the basis of his race.

The district court did not err in concluding that LPCC

officials were not deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff’s

medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). 

The district court also did not err in holding that the plaintiff

failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding

whether LPCC officials discriminated against him on the basis of

his race. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49

(1986). This appeal lacks arguable merit and is thus frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

 APPEAL DISMISSED.
Department of the United States Air Force LogoBiography
                  United States Air ForceThis is the official portrait of Tony M. Ames.
            TONY M. AMESTony Ames, a member of the Senior Executive Service, is the Assistant Auditor General, Operations and Support Audits Directorate, Air Force Audit Agency, Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph Air Force Base, Texas. He provides executive leadership and direction for Air Force-wide audit activities addressing Cyberspace, Operations, Civil Engineering, Health Care and Personnel activities. Mr. Ames began his federal government career with the AFAA in 1990 as a PALACE ACQUIRE intern at Davis-Monthan AFB. Since that time, he has held positions at various locations and levels of the agency, including Region Chief, Deputy Assistant Auditor General, Associate Director, Program Manager, Audit Manager, Auditor, and Executive Officer. As the Chief, Western Audit Region, he provided operational guidance and supervision to 190 personnel assigned to seven field offices geographically dispersed throughout East Asia and the Western United States.EDUCATION
1989 Bachelor of Science, Accounting, Weber State University, Ogden, Utah
1989 Master of Science, Accounting, Weber State University, Ogden, Utah
2003 GS-15 Leadership Seminar, Washington, D.C.
2006 The Voice of Leadership, by correspondence
2010 Enterprise Leadership Seminar, by correspondence
2011 Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.
2014 Enterprise Perspective Seminar, by correspondence
2016 National and International Security Leadership Seminar, by correspondenceCAREER CHRONOLOGY
1. March 1990–November 1994, Auditor, GS12, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz.
2. November 1994–December 1998, Audit Manager, GS13, March Air Reserve Base, Calif.
3. December 1998–April 1999, Chief of Staff, GS13, March ARB, Calif.
4. April 1999–September 2002, Program Manager, GS14, March ARB, Calif.
5. September 2002–June 2006, Associate Director, GS15, Brooks City-Base, Texas
6. June 2006–July 2016, Deputy Assistant Auditor General, GS15, Randolph AFB, Texas
7. July 2016–August 2019, Chief, Western Audit Region, GS15, Randolph AFB, Texas
8. August 2019–present, Assistant Audit General, Senior Executive Service, Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph AFB, TexasCERTIFICATIONS
1990 Certified Public Accountant
2015 DoD Financial Management Certification, Level IIIPROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS AND ASSOCIATIONS
Member, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
(Current as of May 2020)Department of the Air Force Logo
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: July 29Published July 29, 2016
                        
                        By Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** -- In this look around the Air Force, an amputee Air Force pilot gets back into the cockpit, Airmen are given the opportunity to retrain into special operations without risking their current Air Force specialty code, and the Air Force secretary honors the Air Force's longest serving civilian. 
For previous episodes, click here.
Related links:
- Amputee regains wings
- Policy changes allow Airmen to retrain into special operations  
- WWII veteran retires after 70 years of military, civil servicespecial operations 



Hurlburt Field 



Florida 



retrain 



amputee 



pilot 



Moody AFB 



Georgia 



SecAF 



ATAF
Exhibit 10.86

                  FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

             WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION COMMITTEE


The undersigned, being all of the members of the Deferred Compensation Committee
established under the NAB Group USA Deferred  Compensation  Plan, hereby resolve
as follows:

WHEREAS,  Michigan  National  Corporation  ("MNC")  has  established  a separate
deferred compensation plan,

WHEREAS,  MNC desires to transfer all Participants' NAB Plan account balances to
MNC's new plan and cease to be a Participating Employer in this plan,

NOW THEREFORE it is resolved that, effective as of the date below,

1.   Section  1.1 of the Plan shall be amended and  restated in its  entirety as
     follows:

          Establishment and Purpose.  Each Participating  Employer hereby adopts
          -------------------------
     the NAB Group-USA Deferred Compensation Plan (the "Plan"),  effective as of
     February  10, 1998 (the  "Effective  Date").  The purpose of the Plan is to
     provide each  Participant  in the Plan with an opportunity to defer receipt
     of  salary,  bonus,  and other  specified  cash  compensation.  The Plan is
     intended to benefit a "select  group of  management  or highly  compensated
     employees" within the meaning of Sections 201, 301 and 401 of ERISA, and to
     be therefore  exempt from the  requirements of Parts 2, 3, and 4 of Title I
     of ERISA.

2.   Michigan National Corporation shall be removed as a Participating  Employer
     for all purposes under the Plan.


                       Date:  November 14, 2000               /s/
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Kevin Race
                                                 HomeSide, Inc.


                       Date:  November 14, 2000              /s/
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Joe Fritzsche
                                                 Michigan National Corporation
#### Missouri Glass Co. v. Spencer Gregg.

(No. 6411.)

Appeal from Jeff Davis County.

H. Van Horn, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 92. *Foreign judgment; certified copy of, evidence in suit on; need not show on its face whether plaintiff therein was a firm or corporation, etc.*Appellant brought this action against appellee as administrator of the estate of D. M. Hickman, deceased, to establish a claim against said estate, said claim having been presented to and rejected by said, administrator. Said claim is a judgment rendered by the circuit court of Boone county, in the state of Missouri, in 1879, in favor of appellant, against D. M. Hickman and William C. Duncan, for the sum of $208.63 and costs. On the trial of the cause appellant offered in evidence a certified copy of said judgment, duly authenticated in the mode required by law, to which, as evidence, appellee objected: (1) Because said judgment did not show upon its face whether the plaintiff therein was a firm or a corporation; (2) that, if plaintiff therein was a firm, it was not shown therein what persons composed said firm; (3) that it was not shown that the plaintiff in said judgment was the plaintiff in this suit. These objections were sustained, and appellant was not permitted to read sai'd certified copy of said judgment in evidence; and judgment was i’endered for appellee. It was error to reject said certified copy of the judgment as evidence. It was alleged in appellant’s pleading that appellant was a corporation, and was the plaintiff in said judgment. It was not necessary that the truth of these allegations should appear upon the face of said judg*136ment. As to the allegation that appellant was a corporation, no evidence was required in support of it, as its truth was not denied by appellee under oath. [R. S., art. 1190.] As to the identity of the plaintiff in said judgment with the plaintiff in this suit, that fact would not, of course, be shown by the judgment, but would be the subject of proof by other evidence, and might be proved by parol evidence. We will not consider the action of the court sustaining exceptions to appellant’s original petition, inasmuch as appellant amended said pleadings, and cured the defects covered by said exceptions, and thereupon his petition, as amended, was sustained. Because the court erred in rejecting the certified copy of the judgment offered in evidence by the appellant, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

April 23, 1890.

Reversed and remanded.
#### AMERICAN CENTURY CASUALTY COMPANY, et al. v. Charles F. SALE.

No. 2010-C-2410.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re American Century Casualty Company, et al.; Barett, Michelle; Franklin, Ashley; —Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 528,063; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,560-CA.

Denied.