alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The Indiana Mutual Fire Insurance Company *v.*Chamberlain and Others.

Bill in chancery by the *Indiana Mutual Fire Insurance Company*against the heirs of *C.*and a terre-tenant, to subject certain real estate, which *C.*had insured, and which had descended to his heirs, to the payment of the premium note given to said company by C. The bill showed that at the time of C.’s death, nothing was due on the note. *Held,*that the bill would not lie.

APPEAL from the *Tippecanoe*Circuit Court.

Perkins, J.

Bill in chancery by the *Indiana Mutual Fire Insurance Company,*against the heirs of *John C. Chamberlain,*deceased, and a terre-tenant, to enforce the lien and payment of a premium note against real estate insured. The bill shows that the insurance was effected by *Chamberlain*on the first of *March,*1839; that in the fall of the same year he died, nothing being then in arrear on this premium note to the Insurance Company; that the assessments, the non-payment of which forfeited the premium note, were made for losses which happened nearly a year subsequent to the death of *Chamberlain;*and that the real estate insured has descended to his heirs. The Circuit Court dismissed the bill, on demurrer, for want of equity.

If this bill can be sustained, it must be upon one of two grounds; either that the lien of this premium note continues to adhere to the property insured in the possession of the heirs; of that the heirs, by virtue of the proviso to the *151fifteenth section of the charter of the company, have themselves become members of said company, by procuring the policy to be “ratified and confirmed to them.”

*G. S. Orth,*for the appellants.

*J. Pettit*and *S. A. Ruff,*for the appellees.

That the lien of the premium note does not continue upon the property in the hands of alienees, is decided by the case of *M'Culloch*v. *The Ind. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*at the present term of this Court; and we are satisfied upon a full examination, that heirs, by the spirit and meaning of the original charter, are placed upon the same footing with alienees; that though not technically, yet within the intent of the charter, descent is an alienation, and that thereby the lien of the insurance upon the property is divested.

As to the second ground, it is not pretended that these heirs have procured a confirmation of the policy to themselves. We think the heirs have nothing to do with this matter. It is our opinion that the personal representative of the deceased might, under the fifteenth section of the charter, surrender the policy to the company to be cancelled, unless an assignment of it was claimed by the heirs; and that he might be liable, in his representative capacity, to pay arrearages due thereon as a debt of the intestate. If the heirs chose to have an assignment of the policy, we think they would have been entitled to the same as alienees, in order that it might be ratified to them.

The Court committed no error in dismissing the bill.

*Per Curiam.*

The decree is affirmed with costs.
# Sitemap

## March 01, 2016

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2016
- 03
- March 01, 2016

            - Scott Kelly Looks Back at the Kennedy Space Center
            - MUSIC Successfully Launched from NASA Wallops
            - Office Space in Building 226
            - NASA Finds Drought in Eastern Mediterranean Worst of Past 900 Years
            - Last Sunrise From a Year in Space
            - JSC Building 41 Floor Plan
            - Building 225 in Relation to Building 226
            - Location of Building 225 at JSC
            - New Aviation Horizons Press Conference
            - Floor Plan for Building 225
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1941-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-1941-DR), dated  October 13, 2010, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         October 19, 2010.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Minnesota is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of October 13, 2010.
      ( print page 65503)    
Brown, Carver, Le Sueur, Nicollet, Nobles, Redwood, Sibley, and Yellow Medicine Counties for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2010-26845 Filed 10-22-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.1


May 5, 2020




[Executive Address]




Dear [Executive]:


This letter memorializes your agreement with OUTFRONT Media Inc. (the “Company”) to temporarily reduce your gross annual base salary by [   ]% percent ([   ]%), in recognition of the unusual circumstances expected to continue to impact the Company’s operations as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.  You have agreed that the reduction will apply beginning on May 12, 2020, and will continue through the earlier of (i) September 9, 2020, and (ii) a date determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company, at which time your gross annual base salary amount will revert to your current gross annual base salary of $[                  ].  You hereby acknowledge and agree that this reduction is voluntary, will not constitute grounds for you to resign for “Good Reason” pursuant to your Employment Agreement with the Company, dated as of [                  ] (the “Employment Agreement”), and will not constitute a breach of the Employment Agreement.   


You and the Company hereby agree that any severance benefits that may be owed to you, whether pursuant to the Employment Agreement or the Company’s Executive Change in Control Severance Plan, any annual bonus that may be payable to you under the Company’s Amended and Restated Executive Bonus Plan, and any other amount of compensation or benefits that you are entitled to receive and which is calculated based on the amount of your annual base salary, will be determined without regard to the reduction in your annual base salary reflected herein.  


Thank you for your service to the Company in these challenging times.  Please confirm your acceptance of the foregoing by providing your signature below and returning a fully executed copy of this letter to me.


Sincerely,


/s/ Nancy Tostanoski


Nancy Tostanoski
Executive Vice President,
Chief Human Resources Officer




AGREED AND ACCEPTED:


____________________________
[Executive]


Date:________________________
- OIIR Home
- OIIR Organization
- OIIR Export Control
- OIIR Links   - Helpful Links
  - Internship
- Advisory Committee

# 							OIIR Helpful Links						

						Office of International and Interagency Relations Mission					

**Related Internet Resources**

*NOTE: Many of the links on this page reside outside the NASA.GOV domain.*
      - National Space Policy         - Executive Order for the National Space Council
        - White House Fact Sheet on the National Space Strategy
        - International Space Station Multilateral Intergovernmental Agreement — United States, Canada, European Space Agency, Japan, Russia  (January 1998)
        - International Space Station Crew Code of Conduct
        - International Space Station Bilateral Agreements           - ​NASA-Canadian Space Agency Agreement  (January 1998)
          - NASA-European Space Agency Agreement  (January 1998)
          - NASA-Russian Space Agency Agreement  (January 1998)
          - NASA-Government of Japan Agreement  (February 1998) 
        - International Space Station  (Johnson Space Center) 
      - Other U.S. Government Links         - White House Home Page
        - Department of Defense
        - Space Force
        - Department of State Home Page
        - Department of State Foreign Travel Alerts and Warnings
        - Federal Aviation Administration
        - Federal Aviation Administration Commercial Space Transportation
        - Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
      - Other Links         - Group on Earth Observations
        - Committee on Earth Observation Satellites
        - International Astronautical Federation
        - United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs  		  

+ NASA Partnerships Office

+ Current Space Agreements

ASAP 2021 Annual Report (PDF)Translations of the Artemis Accords 1-28-2022 (pdf)

## Discover More Offices From NASA

The Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

Chief FOIA Officer Reports

Mission Support Directorate

Procurement
#### Douglas G. MAYBERRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael PETTIFORD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-60209.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 9, 2003.

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Douglas G. Mayberry (“Mayberry”), federal inmate # 70949-012, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Mayberry argues that he is challenging the length of his confinement, not the conditions of his confinement, and that his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition therefore is not subject to the exhaustion provision of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Mayberry concedes that a judicially created exhaustion requirement applies to his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, but he argues that exhaustion is not jurisdictional, and that his failure to exhaust the available remedies should be excused because it would be futile and would cause irreparable harm.

Mayberry is correct that the exhaustion requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) do not apply to a properly filed section 2241 petition. *See Walker v. O’Brien,*216 F.3d 626, 634 (7th Cir.2000). Nevertheless, federal prisoners must exhaust “administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” *Fuller v. Rich,*11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir.1994). We review the district court’s dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust for an abuse of discretion. *Id.*Mayberry does not dispute that he did not exhaust available administrative remedies, and we conclude that he has failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a waiver of the exhaustion requirement. *See id.*Mayberry’s complaints regarding the length of the administrative appeals process are particularly unpersuasive considering that Mayberry’s earliest possible release date, even accepting his theory of the *300case, is not until May of 2017, and he does not claim otherwise.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Mayberry’s petition without prejudice, and the district court’s judgment is therefore

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
- MSD Home
- About MSD
- MSD Organization
- MSD Leadership
- MSD Downloadable Content   - View All
  - Mission Support Overview Fact Sheet
  - NASA Infrastructure Priorities: FY25
  - NASA Infrastructure Priorities: FY24 Opportunities in the PBR
  - 2021 Annual Report
  - 2022 Annual Report
  - 2023 Annual Report

# 							MSD Downloadable Content						

						NASA’s mission support portfolio provides the essential business foundation for all missions. In addition to services like HR, finance, IT, and procurement, mission support also includes independent technical authorities that ensure safety, success, and excellence, and the maintenance and management of Agency facilities and infrastructure. View the latest products featuring key highlights of the mission support portfolio. 					

## 2023 Mission Support Annual Report 

NASA’s Mission Support community—a critical partner in every mission, every launch, and every discovery at NASA—elevated mission success in 2023. See how the story of the Mission Support community is also the story of NASA.  
Read the 2023 Annual Report

## 				Annual Reports			

## 2023 Annual Report

## 2022 Annual Report

## 2021 Annual Report

## 				MSD Fact Sheets			

## Mission Support Overview Fact Sheet

## NASA Infrastructure Priorities: FY25

## NASA Infrastructure Priorities: FY24

## 				Environmental Factsheets			

## MSD Chincoteague One Pager

## MSD PFAS One Pager

## MSD Railroad Valley One Pager

## MSD Santa Susana One Pager

## Discover More Topics From NASA

Artemis

NASA Organization

Facilities Used for SLS and Orion

People of NASA
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40576

Summary Calendar

DEWAYNE RAY CLUBB,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JEFFERSON COUNTY, Texas; JEFF BRANICK, Judge, Jefferson County, 

Texas; MITCH WOODS, Sheriff's Office, Jefferson County, Texas; BOB 

WORTHAM, District Attorney's Office, Jefferson County, Texas; RACHEL 

GROVE, District Attorney's Office, Jefferson County, Texas,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:16-CV-84

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dewayne Ray Clubb, a former Texas prisoner, appeals the district court’s 

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil suit as frivolous. In his complaint, Clubb 

alleged that he was not advised of his rights upon arrest, that his repeated 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 16, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40576 Document: 00514389589 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2018
No. 17-40576

2

requests for medication and counsel were ignored, and that he was bullied into 

pleading guilty without understanding the effect of his plea. 

This court reviews the dismissal of a frivolous complaint for abuse of 

discretion. Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013). In his brief, 

Clubb reasserts the facts supporting his claims but fails to make any reference 

to the district court’s reasons for dismissing them. Because Clubb offers no 

basis to disagree with the district court’s analysis, any challenge to that ruling 

is deemed abandoned on appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff 

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the judgment of the 

district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-40576 Document: 00514389589 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2018
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.
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
 AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
 ACTION: Update Listing of Financial Institutions in Liquidation.
 SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in the 
                        **Federal Register**
                        ) may be relied upon as “of record” notice that the Corporation has been appointed receiver for purposes of the statement of policy published in the July 2, 1992 issue of the 
                        **Federal Register**
                         (57 FR 29491). For further information concerning the identification of any institutions which have been placed in liquidation, please visit the Corporation Web site at 
                        *http://www.fdic.gov/​bank/​individual/​failed/​banklist.html*
                         or contact the Manager of Receivership Oversight in the appropriate service center. Dated: October 25, 2010. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Pamela Johnson, Regulatory Editing Specialist.
 Institutions in Liquidation
[In alphabetical order]
FDIC ref. No.
Bank name
City
State
Date closed10306
First Arizona Savings, a FSB
Scottsdale
AZ
10/22/201010300
First Bank of Jacksonville
Jacksonville
FL
10/22/201010301
First Suburban National Bank
Maywood
IL
10/22/201010302
Hillcrest Bank
Overland Park
KS
10/22/201010303
Progress Bank of Florida
Tampa
FL
10/22/201010304
The First National Bank of Barnesville
Barnesville
GA
10/22/201010305
The Gordon Bank
Gordon
GA
10/22/2010


[FR Doc. 2010-27374 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
#### Pitzer *v.*Harmon.

The discharge of a promissory note by a surety by giving his own note not negotiable by the law-merchant, and which he has not paid, does not authorize him to sue his principal for money paid.

APPEAL from the *Boone*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

Assumpsit for money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant’s use. Plea, the general issue; trial by the Court; and judgment for the plaintiff.

The facts are as follows: The defendant was indebted to a third person by a promissory note, to which the plaintiff was surety. The plaintiff to avoid a suit made an arrangement with the creditor, by which he gave his individual note (not negotiable by the law-merchant) which was received in discharge and satisfaction of the joint note of the defendant and plaintiff The note so given in lieu of *the other*note had not been paid when this action was commenced.

We do not think an action for money paid can be sustained under these circumstances. To support an action in that form *money*must have been actually paid, or something equivalent to the payment of money must have taken place. In this cause the plaintiff had paid no money, nor' done any thing which could be construed into the payment of money. He had, it is true, caused the debt of the defendant for which he was surety to be discharged; but he did it by giving a new security: he gave only his promise to pay. It is well settled in *England*that the giving of new security (unless perhaps when it consists of negotiable paper) is not sufficient to Support an action for money paid, although the original debt be merged in an obligation of a higher *nature.*— Max*113*well*v. *Jameson,*2 B. & Ald. *51.*— Taylor v. *Higgins,*3 East, *169.*— Power v. *Butcher,*10 B. & C. 329. See, also, *Cumming*v. *Hackley, 8*Johns. 202.

*W. W. Wick*and L. *Barbour,*for the appellant.

*H.*and *H. Brown,*and *A. G. Porter,*for the appellee.

The note given by the plaintiff in this cause in satisfaction of the debt for which he was bound, was not negotiable by the law-merchant, and cannot, so far as this question is concerned, be distinguished under the laws of this state from a bond, which was the new security given in the above-cited cases. We are aware that *American*decisions may be found which do not comport with this opinion. But we think it somewhat unsafe to establish the doctrine, that a surety who has discharged the debt of his principal by a new security, may turn round and sue him for money, which he has not paid, and perhaps may never pay.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
EXHIBIT 32



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 Annual Report of Pacific Land and Coffee Corporation  (the "Company") on Form  10-KSB for the  period  ending  March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof  (the "Report"),  I, John L. Hales, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ John L.Hales

By: John L. Hales

Chief Executive  Officer

June 27, 2008
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 this Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of
NexCen Brands, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Second Amendment”), each of the undersigned, to the best of his knowledge and
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





1.
            The Second Amendment fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and





2.
            The information contained in the
      Second Amendment fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the
  Company.





/s/
      Kenneth J. Hall
            
            August
      11, 2009Kenneth
      J. HallChief
      Executive Officer/s/
      Mark E. Stanko
            
            August
      11, 2009Mark
      E. StankoChief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
NexCen Brands, Inc. and will be retained by NexCen Brands, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.