alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Burke *v.*Voyles.

*Thursday, November*21.

The plaintiff cannot give parol evidence of the contents of a written award on which he sues, without accounting for the absence of the award.

ERROR to the *Morgan*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, J.

Assumpsit. Plea, the general issue. The facts of this case- are, that *Voyles*having an account against *Burke,*brought suit upon it before a justice of the peace. During the pendency of the suit, the parties submitted the matter in controversy to arbitrators mutually chosen. The arbitrators made an award in writing in favour of *Voyles.*Judgment was not entered on the award by the justice of the peace, nor do the arbitrators, who were witnesses on the trial, remember whether it was returned to him or not. This suit was brought to recover the amount of that award.

On the trial, the plaintiff below offered evidence of the *191foregoing facts, but failed to produce the award or account for its absence. To the. introduction of the evidence, the defendant objected, but the Court admitted it, and gave judgment for the plaintiff.

*H. Brown*and *C. C. Nave,*for the plaintiff.

*B. Bull,*for the defendant.

The Court erred in permitting the plaintiff to prove the contents of the award, without proving that the instrument itself was not within his reach. It violated the well settled rule which rejects secondary and inferior evidence, when it is attempted to be substituted for evidence of a higher and superior nature. The best attainable evidence must -be adduced to prove every dispute^ fact. The rule is founded in a suspicion of fraud — a presumption arises that the best evidence is withheld, because the party is conscious, if it were produced, his object would be frustrated. Stark. Ev. 3d part, 389, 390.' — Bull. N. P. 293. — 1 Peters’ Rep. 596. The presumption is that a copy of the award when made and signed by the arbitrators; was delivered to *Voyles;*and the presumption further is that the paper is still in his -power. Until that presumption be removed, by proving the loss or destruction of the instrument, secondary evidence should not be received.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
## This page has permanently moved.

### If redirect does not occur in 5 seconds, click the following link: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/Investigation.html?#id=2013
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 205 (Monday, October 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27015]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5415-C-17]


Notice of Availability: Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Assistance 
Program; Technical Correction

AGENCY: Office of the Chief of the Human Capital Officer, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of technical correction.

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

SUMMARY: On September 20, 2010, HUD posted on http://www.Grants.gov and 
http://www.hudhre.info its Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for 
HUD's FY2010 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Program. Today's 
Federal Register publication announces that HUD has posted on http://www.Grants.gov and http://www.hudhre.info a technical correction that 
corrects Appendix A of the NOFA. Appendix A of the NOFA, the ``List of 
Counties Defined as Rural for the FY2010 Selection Criteria,'' 
inadvertently omitted listing six counties. As provided in the FY2010 
CoC NOFA, counties listed on Appendix A and otherwise meeting the 
criteria described in Section III.C.2.a.(5) of the NOFA, are eligible 
for consideration for the selection priority described in Section V.B.2 
of the NOFA. In addition, HUD determined that five counties not meeting 
the definition of rural county used in the FY2010 CoC NOFA were 
inadvertently included on the list of rural counties in Appendix A. As 
a result, HUD has corrected Appendix A.
    The revised CoC NOFA along with the corrected Appendix A can be 
found and downloaded from http://www.grants.gov and http://www.hudhre.info. This correction does not change the application 
deadline date which remains November 18, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning this 
technical correction, please contact HUD's Homeless Resource Exchange 
(HRE) Help Desk at http://www.hudhre.info/helpdesk. Individuals who are 
hearing or speech-impaired should use the Information Relay Service at 
1-800-877-8339 (these are toll-free numbers).

    Dated: October 20, 2010.
Barbara S. Dorf,
Director, Departmental Grants Management and Oversight Office of the 
Chief of the Human Capital Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-27015 Filed 10-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
No. 120.

#### H. *V.*Johnson, Governor, plaintiff in error, *vs.*James B. Goddard *et al.*defendants.

[1.] A clerical mistake or omission, in the direction of a *scire facias,*is amendable.

*Scire facias,*in Carroll Superior Court. Decision by Judge Bull, December Term, 1855.

This was a *scire facias*issued on a penal bond, for the appearance of a party charged with crime.

The *scire facias*was objected to, because it was directed

To the Sheriff of said State, Greeting.”

The Solicitor General moved to amend, which the Court refused, and dismissed the *seire facias.*

To both decisions the Solicitor General excepts.

Bleckley, Solicitor General, for plaintiff in error.

*By the Court.*

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] The Act of 1852 *(Pamphlet Latos,*284) requires, that all writs of *scire facias*shall be directed “ to all and singular •••the Sheriffs of the State of Georgia.” Is a direction *“to*the *598Sheriffs of said State” sufficient? And if not, is it amendable?

Eor myself, I should read the direction in the plural: “ to the *Sheriffs*of said State;” and then it would undoubtedly be good. Rut suppose it be in the singular, “ Sheriffis it amendable?

Mr. *Tidd,*in his work on Practice, remarks, that it had been said that a *scire facias*was not amendable. But he continues, “ There are cases in the books where writs of *scire facias*had been amended by the Courts, not only where it was had on the face of it, by *the mistake’ of the- Olerh,*but also for other causes.” And he concludes by saying, that “it seems now to be settled, that the power of amending writs of *scire facias,*is discretionary with the Courts.” (2 *Volume,*1123.)

The Judiciary Act of 1799 *{Qohh,*1136) declares, amongst other things, that “no process, judgment *or other proceeding, in any civil*cause,,shall be abated, arrested, quashed or reversed for any defect in matter of form, *or for any clerical mistake or omission,*not affecting the real merits of the cause; but the Court, on motion, shall cause the same to be amended, without any additional cost, and shall proceed to give judgment.”

And finally, the great Act of *Jeofails*of 1853-’4, *(Pamphlet Laws,*48,) allows pleadings to be amended at any stage *and in all respects,*whether in matter of form or substance.

■ Has not the people of Georgia resolved that every cause shall be tried upon its merits ? And shall the Courts undertake or struggle further to arrest or obstruct this wise and beneficent policy, inaugurated by the Constitution of 1777, and steadily pursued ever since ?

By a Statute of the last Legislature, a party is allowed even to amend his attachment as to the bond, return of the officer, &c. And it is provided in that Act, that the *singular*number shall include *thejplural. (De Graffenreid’s Dig.*19, 20.) Shall we, because of the omission of a little “s,” if, indeed, it be omitted, force the law-makers to tax their *599ingenuity still further, and waste the time and money which might be so much better employed, in putting a stop to quibbling ?
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


May 5, 2020


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


SmartTrust 476 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trusts (the “Trusts”) included in
the Registration Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trusts on the date
hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on May 4, 2020, in accordance
with the valuation method set forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreements. We consent to
the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the Registration
Statement (No. 333-236433) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the
Units of the Trusts and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	 
	 	/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO
	 	Gerardo Cipriano
	 	Vice President
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

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

###### National Institutes of Health

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

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

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Special Emphasis Panel, Type 3 P01s.                    

*Date:*                         November 16, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call.)                    

*Contact Person:*                         Peter Kozel, PhD, Scientific Review Officer,  NCCAM, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20892-5475. 301-496-8004.                         *kozelp@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 15, 2010.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-26907 Filed 10-22-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Johnson *v.*Clark.

Indebitatus assumpsit does not lie on a collateral undertaking.

In assumpsit .on a collateral- undertaking, the -declaration should sh'ow the ■consideration, of'the promise and .the circumstances under ’which it w-as made.

*565
      *Thursday, June*3.

ERROR to the *Marion*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, J.

The facts of this case, as disclosed by the record, were, that one *Pogue*and the defendant Clark, by a written contract dated the 5th of November, 1838, in consideration of a horse of the value of 75 dollars delivered to them by the plaintiff Johnson, undertook to perform certain repairs on his dwelling-house, &c. The work was to be completed on or before the 1st of *February,*1839. Previously to the expiration of the time for the performance of the work, viz. on the 30th of *January,*1839, a new contract in reference to the same work, by which the repairs to be done were materially changed, was entered into between *Johnson*and *Pogue.*To the latter contract *Clark*was not a party; but previously to its execution, *Clark*wrote a letter to *Johnson*in which he promised *u*that if *Johnson*and *Pogue*should make a new contract, he would stand good for the performance of 75 dollars’ worth of said work, and for which he was already bound in an article with said *Pogue*bearing date the 5th of *November,*1838.” *Pogue*failed to perform, and *Johnson*commenced the present suit.

The declaration contains three counts in indebitatus assumpsit. The first is for a horse sold and delivered to one *John Pogue*at the special instance and request of the defendant; the second for a horse sold and delivered to the defendant; and the third for a horse sold and delivered to defendant and one *John Pogue,*also for goods sold and delivered, money had and received, &c. Plea, non assumpsit. Verdict and judgment for the defendant.

The only question is, whether *Johnson*can recover from *Clark*in this form of action? We are of opinion that he cannot. The contract of the 5th of *November,*1838, was annulled by the subsequent contract of the 30th of *January.*To the latter contract *Clark*was not a party. By his letter of the 21st of *January, he*undertook to guaranty the performance of 75 dollars’ worth of work by *Pogue.*On the failure of *Pogue*to do the work, a right of action accrued to *Johnson*against *Clark,*but only on his special agreement. *Clark*being collaterally liable only, the declaration should show as well the consideration of his promise, as the special circumstances under which it was made.

*566
      *G. Fletcher, 0. Butler,*and *S. Fancies,*for the plaintiff.

*II. Brown,*for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with costs.
Since October 2020, four massive pillar collapses have occurred in limestone 

mines. Each was accompanied by a powerful airblast and the formation of a 

large surface sinkhole. Fortunately they did not result in any injuries. In 2015, 

three miners were seriously injured by an airblast from a fifth pillar collapse. 

All of these collapses involved tall, slender pillars in benched areas. Four were in 

“legacy” areas that had been mined many years ago.

At this seminar, MSHA Technical Support’s Roof Control Division will be 

providing information to raise awareness of these collapse events. They will also 

present ways to assess and mitigate the risks associated with a massive 

collapses in both active workings and legacy areas.

Presentation topics:

1) Overview of recent limestone pillar collapse events

2) Limestone pillar design using the NIOSH S-Pillar program

3) Risk Analysis for limestone pillar collapse

4) Investigation and analysis of airblast risk from pillar collapse

The Seminar will be presented remotely via Microsoft TEAMS.

A certificate for four (4) Professional Development Hours (PDHs) will be 

provided to participants. Please register at least 3 business days prior to 

the seminar to receive the meeting invitation. 

To Register or Questions, email:PillarInitiative@dol.gov

For more information, visit www.msha.gov/PillarInitiative 

MSHA WARRENDALE DISTRICT 

STONE MINE PILLAR COLLAPSE SEMINAR 

November 18, 2021 8:00am - 12:00pm (ET)
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26559]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Plumas County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC)

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Plumas County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold 
a meeting on November 12, 2011 in Quincy, CA. The purpose of the 
meeting is to review a timeline for Cycle 11 funding and view 
presentations about completed Plumas County RAC projects. The funding 
is made available under Title II provisions of the Secure Rural Schools 
and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.

DATES AND ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place from 9:30-12 at the 
Mineral Building--Plumas/Sierra County Fairgrounds, 208 Fairgrounds 
Road, Quincy, CA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (or for special needs): Lee Anne 
Schramel Taylor, Forest Coordinator, USDA, Plumas National Forest, P.O. 
Box 11500/159 Lawrence Street, Quincy, CA 95971; (530) 283-7850; or by 
E-MAIL <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f095918491899c9f82b09683de969594de8583"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="096c687d687065667b496f7a276f6c6d277c7a">[email protected]</span></a>. Other RAC information may be obtained at 
http://www.fs.fed.us/srs.

    Dated: October 15, 2010.
Alice B. Carlton,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2010-26559 Filed 10-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# 5-s61-02735

Astronauts Alan Shepard and John Glenn at breakfast before Shepard’s Mercury-Redstone 3 (MR-3) spaceflight.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/5-s61-02735/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTags- Kennedy Space Center
- NASA History
- Project Mercury
- WebMod Grandfathered
Image CreditNASASize3000x2388pxThe National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Jan 27, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								  									Michele Ostovar								 
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), the undersigned, Gordon Link, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Tapestry
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:



Date:
November 5, 2007

| |  | /s/GORDON LINKGordon LinkSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Tapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Tapestry
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff upon request. This certification "accompanies" the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---



QuickLinks
#### Wooster *v.*Lyons.

*Friday, November*30.

If a person execute a written promise by a wrong name, he must be sued on the instrument in that name.

ERROR to the *Fayette*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

Assumpsit. The declaration alleges that the defendant, “ by the name and description of *Moses Ons,”*executed his promissory note, &c. General demurrer to the declaration, and joinder. The Circuit Court sustained the demurrer, and rendered judgment for the defendant.

This decision was right. If a person execute a written promise by a wrong name, he must be sued in that name.

To declare against him in his true name, averring that he *61executed the instrument by the untrue description is erroneous. If to a suit against him in his assumed name he plead a misnomer, the replication may state the facts, and it will be sustained by the production of the instrument executed in the name in which he is sued. *Field*v. Winlow, Cro. Eliz. *897.*—Gould v. Barnes, 3 Taunt. 504.—1 Chitt. Pl. 279.—1 Stark. Ev. 413.

*C. H.*Test, for the plaintiff.

*J.*Perry, for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with costs.
# Sitemap

## December 14, 2010

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2010
- 12
- December 14, 2010

            - Newest Space Station Crew Members Launch From Kazakhstan
            - At the Pad
            - Hubble Supernova Bubble Resembles Holiday Ornament
#### HOWARD LEVISON v. RICHARD WEINTRAUB.

May 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied. (See 215 *N.J.Super.*273)